Latest News

06.07.2026

When a neighbouring construction project goes catastrophically wrong, causing the physical failure and emergency demolition of an adjoining property, the instinct to sue every ‘professional’ involved is understandable though legally perilous. A major High Court case has forcefully re-established that structural damage—even total property loss—does not allow an aggrieved freeholder to bypass the strict procedural rules of pleading or ignore the boundaries of corporate and statutory liability.

Background:

The claimant, Mr. Kirupakaran, is the freehold owner of 166 Croydon Road, a mixed-use terraced property comprising a retail unit and residential flats. The adjoining property at 164 Croydon Road is owned by MYK Properties Holding Ltd., of which the first and second defendants (Mr. and Mrs. Ibrahim) are directors and the third defendant (Mr. Essa) is an employee. In 2024, MYK commenced major structural works at No. 164, engaging the fourth defendant (Crown Builders Contractors) as main contractor, the fifth defendant (Mr. Cook) as MYK's party wall surveyor, and the sixth defendant (Mr. Randall) as the claimant's party wall surveyor under the Party Wall Act (PWA) 1996.

Shortly after work began in August 2024, severe cracking and structural movement were observed at the claimant's property. Despite inspections and the making of two party wall awards, the damage progressively worsened. By February 2025, structural engineers had advised that the properties were at risk of collapse. In June 2025, the London Borough of Bromley ordered an emergency demolition, and the claimant's property was partially demolished. The claimant commenced proceedings, seeking approximately £1.4m in damages against all six defendants. Each defendant applied to strike out the claim and for summary judgement.

Decision:

The High Court struck out the entire claim and granted total summary judgement to the defendants, ruling that the claimant had no real prospect of success under the Civil Procedure Rules, or CPRs, specifically CPR 24.3. The Court emphasised that the CPRs apply to all litigants equally.

Thus, being an unrepresented litigant in person does not exempt one from the mandatory requirement to plead a clear factual and legal cause of action. The Court found that the claimant’s lawsuit failed simply because it merely asserted generalised, collective negligence without identifying the specific scope of duties, exact contractual or tortious breaches, or the precise causative mechanisms that connected each defendant to the building’s collapse.

Further, the Court systematically dismissed the legal validity of the claims against each category of defendant based on established property and corporate principles. The claim against the individual directors and the contract administrator was bound to fail because the neighbouring property and building contracts belonged exclusively to the corporate entity. Moreover, the claimant identified no legal basis on which to pierce the corporate veil or establish a personal duty of care. While the Court noted that a main contractor can theoretically owe a common law duty to neighbours, the claimant's failure to identify which specific construction operations or design standards were violated left the contractor without a case it could legally investigate or answer. Most importantly, the Court threw out the claims against both party wall surveyors. Relying on such classic precedents as Gyle-Thompson v Wall Street (Properties) Ltd and Gray v Elite Town Management, the Judge confirmed that party wall surveyors occupy an independent, quasi-judicial dispute resolution role. They do not assume design or supervisory obligations; they possess no operational power to suspend works; and they explicitly disclaim responsibility for structural or design insufficiencies within the awards themselves under the Construction (Design and Management (CDM)) Regulations 2015.

Implications:

For commercial landlords, property developers, and residential owners, this decision serves as a stark reminder that, when property damage occurs during shared boundary works, your legal remedies are strictly confined by company law and the specific statutory framework of the PWA.

You cannot personally sue the directors or individual project managers simply because the company itself is dissolved or lacks funds. Before any major boundary works begin, it is essential to ensure that the corporate developer has robust, actionable insurance policies in place that explicitly cover structural damage to adjoining properties.

Further, this ruling clarifies the true legal status of party wall surveyors and shifts the burden of risk management back onto the property owners. You must understand that your appointed party wall surveyor is an independent arbiter and not your personal project manager, advocate, or site supervisor. Surveyors do not inspect the property daily to ensure the construction process is safe, and they cannot be held legally liable if the project fails. If you are concerned about the structural integrity of your building during a neighbour's excavation, then you cannot rely on the party wall process alone; you must independently retain your own structural engineers and architectural experts to actively monitor the works.

Finally, if the neighbour's construction does cause structural damage, your primary remedy lies directly within the mechanisms of the PWA 1996 itself, specifically Section 7(2), which explicitly requires the building owner to compensate the adjoining owner for any injury or loss resulting from the works. If you believe the financial security or protective measures established in a party wall award are insufficient to cover potential risks, your only proper recourse is to file a formal statutory appeal under Section 10 of the Act within the strict 14-day window. Attempting to bypass these statutory paths by launching broad, generalised negligence lawsuits against individual professionals after a collapse will result in your case being thrown out of court, leaving you with a ruined building and a substantial order to pay the other side's legal costs.