Scaffolding ruling puts stop to neighbourly row

Tuesday 17 May 2022

The Royal Court has judged that a property owner can put up scaffolding on the end of his bungalow - despite his neighbours refusing access up to now.

The dispute centred on two beachside bungalows in Grouville and involved the Court interpreting their contracts following a breakdown in relations between their owners.

In a recent judgment, the Court traced the contract history of the properties back in order to determine if the owner of La Côte, Jean Pierre Vernon Falle, could use a three-feet ‘Access Area’ into the property of Beach House, owned by Michael and Karen Russell, in order to change his northern gable to bricks and/or stone from its rendered concrete.

This is because, under the 13th clause of the original contract, the visible end of the house had to be built in those materials.

However, Mr Falle said that, in an amicable agreement with the owner of Beach House at the time, the gable end was built of rendered concrete - but the contract had not been updated to reflect this.

In 2011, Mr Falle put La Côte up for sale, but it fell through because the purchaser’s lawyers took the view that Clause 13 had been breached, in that the northern gable had not been constructed in bricks or stone, a breach which they said could be enforced by the owners of the Beach House, at least until the expiry of 40 years, which would be some time in 2026.

In its judgment, the Court said: “Problems arose between Mr Falle and Mr and Mrs Russell in 2007/8 over certain works which Mr Falle carried out at La Côte.

“It is not the task of this Court to go into the rights and wrongs of the difficulties that arose, or to express any view as to the stance taken by either party.

“Suffice it to say that according to Mr and Mrs Russell the process undermined any goodwill that they had towards Mr Falle, and their position in short is that he no longer has any right of access to the Access Area to carry out works to the northern gable that he has built in breach of Clause 13 and they will not allow any such access on to the Beach House.

“In particular, they will not allow any scaffolding to be erected on any part of the property of the Beach House.

Pictured: Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith was sitting in the Royal Court with Jurats Collette Crill and Andrew Cornish.

“At the same time, they have no intention of enforcing the provision that the northern gable of La Côte should be constructed in bricks or stone.”

Mr Falle, however, argued that he needed to change the façade of his gable end to comply with the terms of the contract.

Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith, who was sitting with Jurats Collette Crill and Andrew Cornish, concluded that Mr Falle was obliged under Clause 13 to build the visible element of the northern gable in bricks and/or stone, visible and not rendered.

They also found that he did have right to use the Access Area at the end of his property, which was on land owned by Mr and Mrs Russell, to replace the outer leaf of the gable end of La Côte with bricks and/or stone.

The Court also judged that he had the right to access Beach House in order to get to the Access Area and that scaffold could be erected or ladders on that area.

It added: “The method statement produced by Mr Falle’s engineers for the work of removal of the outer leaf of concrete blocks and replacement with bricks shows the scaffolding being built within the three-feet limit of the northern gable but extending three feet or so at each gable end, allowing access to the scaffolding from La Côte at both ends.

“Save for the erection of the scaffolding, this enables all of the materials to be kept on La Côte and loaded on to the scaffold from La Côte and for the work to be undertaken without any further access onto and over the Beach House.

“It might be thought that Mr and Mrs Russell allowing the scaffolding to extend beyond the northern gable in this minimal way for the work of maintenance, upkeep, repair or replacement of the northern gable to be carried out, will cause the least inconvenience to them.

“...If they limit the scaffolding strictly to the extent of the gable wall, then the workmen would have to gain access through the front or rear entrances to the Beach House every day for the duration of the works, which would be far more invasive.

“Accordingly, we find that Mr Falle does have an implied right... to erect scaffolding (and to place ladders) on the Access Area.”