Encroachment Damages Over Mandatory Removal

A property owner, having built an extension that encroached slightly onto a neighbor's land, was sued for removal of the encroachment. The lower court, finding the encroachment minimal and the requested demolition disproportionate to the harm suffered by the neighbor, ordered the owner to pay damages instead of removing the structure. The reviewing court upheld this decision, reasoning that the principle of proportionality required balancing the extent of the trespass against the severity of the remedy sought, concluding that requiring the demolition of the structure for a minor encroachment constituted an abuse of rights, thus justifying the substitution of monetary compensation for the mandated removal.