Supreme Court Injunction Sought On Storey On Beach House

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30811, 24 July 1965, Page 7

Supreme Court Injunction Sought On Storey On Beach House

The hearing of an application for an injunction restraining the occupier of a house in Rockinghorse road from adding a storey to the building contrary to the City Council by-laws was adjourned until Monday by Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday for submissions by counsel.

D.ulcie Maud Agatha Weekes, a married woman (Mr C. M. Roper) is seeking to restrain Esme Stella Geddes, a married woman (Mr P. G. S. Pedington, with him Mr K. M. Hampton) from acting on a consent to waiver the City Council requirement of distance from the boundary signed by her husband without her knowledge. Mr Roper said Mrs Weekes was the owner of a house property in Rockinghorse road, South Brighton. Mrs Geddes was her neighbour. The injunction was for the restoration of partially-com-pleted additions in accordance with the by-laws and to restrict further building. He said evidence would be given that about January 27 Mrs Geddes applied for a permit to build substantial additions and submitted plans and specifications. A permit on the basis of the plans was refused. Mr Roper said it was not disputed that the plans did not conform with the City Council by-laws. The proposed building was nearer to the common boundary than the 4ft plus one-fifth of the height of the building (from ” or line to eaves) allowed by the by-laws. The council had later granted a permit subject to the approval of the adjoining owner. “Mrs Geddes’s husband and Mrs Weekes’s husband had some discussion on a Saturday and next day Mr Geddes brought a hand-written consent which Mr Weekes signed though the property

was not his. Mrs Weekes had no knowledge of this approach or that a document had been signed,” Mr Roper said.

She found out about it on April 15 and went to her solicitor. A letter was then sent to Mrs Geddes pointing out that the document had been signed without her knowledge and she objected. At that time the top storey had not been started. The framework was now substantially completed. St. George Wynston Chapman, building engineer for the Christchurch City Council, said the proposed additions were shown as coming within sft of the boundary. Because of the upper storey it was required to be 6ft 6in from the boundary. He said that if there were only the porch which had been added it would conform. “It is only insofar as the upper storey is concerned that it does not conform.”, Mrs Weekes said she had owned the property for eight years and began building the house three years ago. It was not quite finished. She and her family intended using it as their permanent home. She said the effect of the additional storey was to block out sunlight and make her house damp and depressing and take away privacy. Her husband had wrongfully signed a consent to the nonconformity of the building in her name. Cross-examined by Mr Penlington, Mrs Weekes said she and her husband had agreed Mrs Geddes would never get a permit. “We thought the suggested alteration would be terrible but we did not dream it would be passed.” Mr Penlington: Do you not think it strange that he signed it (the consent) if you did have that discussion with him?

The witness: He still thought it was a porch. . . It deprives us of sunlight and also privacy, and to me in our house it just gives me

nightmares. It is right over on the porch instead of on the house. Mr Penlington submitted that the plaintiff had five hurdles tb overcome. There were the validity of the consent; the validity and effectiveness of the pennit; the right of cction even if the consent and/or permit were invalid; proof of special damages; and whether an injunction should issue or damages be awarded. “It is significant the pleadings show no allegation of fraud on the part of Mr Geddes, there is no allegation of nuisance, there is no pleading that the permit is illegal, invalid or unlawful, no order is sought in respect of the consent or the permit, no special damage has been pleaded and no damages claimed, no interference with enjoyment of property is pleaded, and the City Council has not been brought into the proceedings as a party. Alfred Storer Geddes, a solicitor, of Christchurch, husband of the deefndant, said he had no doubt in his mind that Mr Weekes knew what he was doing when he agreed to sign the consent. He was willing to sign it in his wife’s name and it was assumed he had discussed the matter with his wife.