Seeff v Ho

Why this case matters

Seeff v Ho is important because it addresses What was the legal effect of informal consent, and did the completed works amount to trespass?. The recorded decision is that consent was construed on the basis that lawful procedures would be followed; unauthorised works constituted trespass. In practice, the case is relevant because garden-fence consent is not a substitute for proper statutory and planning procedures.

What happened

Neighbours discussed proposed works informally; works were later carried out without party-wall notices and differed from what had been understood.

The practical significance of the background is that the court's conclusion must be read against the particular procedural and factual setting recorded above. A party wall authority should not be treated as deciding a wider proposition merely because similar terminology appears in another dispute.

Question before the court

What was the legal effect of informal consent, and did the completed works amount to trespass?

This is the issue around which the case should be read. In applying the decision, separate that legal question from other factual disagreements between the owners and from matters the court was not required to determine.

Decision

Consent was construed on the basis that lawful procedures would be followed; unauthorised works constituted trespass.

The decision should therefore be used for the proposition actually resolved by the court, rather than as a general answer to every dispute involving the same section of the Act.

What it means in practice

Garden-fence consent is not a substitute for proper statutory and planning procedures.

For surveyors, the useful discipline is to identify the statutory power or duty relied upon, establish that the factual preconditions are present, and then ask whether the proposed step is necessary and supported in this particular case.

What the case does not decide

This summary should not be read as extending the decision beyond the question identified above. It does not, without more, establish that the same result follows where the notices, appointments, works, evidence or procedural history are materially different. Check the full judgment and later authorities before treating the case as determinative of a new set of facts.

Building-owner lesson

Do not rely on informal neighbour conversations as authority to bypass statutory requirements.

Adjoining-owner lesson

Informal consent does not necessarily waive statutory protections or authorise different works.

Surveyor lesson

Record consent precisely and ensure the authorised scheme matches what is built.

Questions to ask before relying on this case

• Is the legal question in the present matter actually the same as the question decided here?
• Are the statutory notices, appointments and jurisdictional steps materially the same?
• Are there factual differences that could justify a different result?
• Has a later or higher authority qualified, distinguished or displaced the proposition?
• Is the proposed reliance correct, necessary and supported in this particular case?

Key passages / points

Paras 31–36 explain why informal consent was conditional on lawful procedures.

Related cases

Nutt v Podger; Apexmaster