Property Litigation - Nicholson Gordon Law

Property Litigation Solicitor

Lawyer Who Properly Understands Property Disputes

Nicholson Gordon Law,  has many years experience of dealing with property litigation in a practical and sensible manner. If these disputes are not managed properly, many property issues can escalate into lengthy and expensive disputes. We work with clients throughout England and Wales to resolve property disputes involving:

  • Fences
  • Boundary disputes
  • Party Wall Act disputes
  • Interpretation of deeds and rights of way

Where boundary disputes are concerned, there is a great deal of misinformation regarding how the position of a boundary is determined.  On a small scale map, such as a land registry scale map, the line on the map can equate to a line some feet across when scaled up.  Expert advice is usually required to determine where the legal boundary actually lies, by considering the legal presumptions and all available plans, deeds and other evidence.  We can assist you to resolve the stress and anxiety of boundary and property disputes.

Contact our experienced boundary dispute solicitor

If you have a dispute relating to property, including breach of restrictive covenant, boundary disputes, nuisance or building disputes, we can help you with cost-effective and pragmatic advice.  We can offer the latest funding options, which may include paying privately, or the use of insurance policy legal costs provision.  We will go through all the options with you and identify the right funding options for you.

Learn more about the representation we offer by contacting us online or ring 01664 431 300 to arrange your initial consultation.

We pursued a claim on behalf of Mr P, a professional landlord, of Derbyshire against his tenant for breach of covenant in failing to install and maintain sound deadening material. The tenant agreed to reinstate the soundproofing.

We pursued a claim on behalf of Mrs W of Norfolk against her local authority in relation to their interference with a right-of-way. A settlement was reached whereby the right-of-way was formally acknowledged, and was identified on our clients Land Registry title. Our client's costs were paid.

We acted for Mr G of Leicestershire in relation to a claim pursued by his neighbour alleging he had undertaken building works in breach of the Party Wall Act etc 1996. Our advice to our client was that he had not needed to serve a Party Wall Act notice, and that a strenuous defence should be raised to his neighbour's aggressive claim. The claim was dropped.

Mr K of Cheshire instructed us to resolve a heated boundary dispute he was involved in with his neighbour. The dispute was resolved by accurate professional determination of the boundary by an expert appointed by us, and confirmed in a written settlement agreed between the parties.

We acted for Mr L to prevent his neighbours from undertaking building works without serving a proper formal Party Wall Act notice prior to beginning work. We threatened an injunction, and succeeded in preventing the neighbour from beginning work.

We act on a regular basis for Miss S a professional landlord to pursue claims against tenants relating to unpaid rent and breach of contract. The vast majority of claims are resolved by payment of damages and legal costs.

Ms F of Cheshire instructed us to pursue a claim for harassment against her neighbour. We applied successfully to the County Court for an injunction pursuant to the Protection from Harassment Act.

We represented Miss M of Leicestershire in a claim brought against her by her neighbours relating to a right-of-way dispute. Following our involvement and formal defence of the claim the neighbours discontinued the County Court action and our client's legal costs were paid. We subsequently advised our client to pursue a claim for adverse possession to the Land Registry which was ultimately successful.

We represented our client Mr Rice in a claim against his neighbours relating to damp caused to his property as a result of the development of the neighbouring land into a car park. The claim was compromised by the payment of damages to our client, to enable him to undertake remedial works, and by further building works being undertaken to our client's property by the neighbours at their cost.

Mr D was being aggressively pursued by solicitors instructed by his neighbours arguing that he had constructed an extension over the boundary line onto the neighbour's land. The dispute was successfully compromised by sensible negotiation. The neighbour's claim for damages and costs was dropped.