Gross v. Wright

Gross v. Wright

The respondent's deliberate reduction of the party wall thickness on his side while keeping the wall perpendicular on the appellant's side was an unauthorized use of the appellant's land amounting to a continuing trespass; damages were inadequate and the proper remedy is a mandatory injunction and specific...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1923] SCR 214
Parties
Appellant: C. Gross; Respondent: H. D. Wright
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 1922
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed; judgment of trial court restored (with directions for demolition/rebuilding or alternatives as specified)
Legal Topics
Party Wall, Breach of Contract, Trespass, Mandatory Injunction, Specific Performance, Damages
Source Language
english
Contract Property Equity Tort Party Wall Breach of Contract Trespass Mandatory Injunction +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. Gross

Appellant

H. D. Wright

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent's narrowing of the party wall constituted trespass or merely breach of contract
  2. 2 Whether damages were an adequate remedy
  3. 3 Whether equity should order mandatory injunction or specific performance compelling demolition and rebuilding to contract specifications

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's deliberate reduction of the party wall thickness on his side while keeping the wall perpendicular on the appellant's side was an unauthorized use of the appellant's land amounting to a continuing trespass; damages were inadequate and the proper remedy is a mandatory injunction and specific performance requiring demolition of the nonconforming portions and rebuilding to comply with the original agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed; judgment of trial court restored (with directions for demolition/rebuilding or alternatives as specified)

Orders

  • Mandatory injunction: demolish portion of wall above point where thickness ceases to be two feet and rebuild party wall to two feet thickness in accordance with the agreement
  • If parties agree, alternative rebuilding to a reduced thickness with compensation to appellant as assessed by the local registrar may be permitted subject to municipal by-law compliance