‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that Party Wall Act awards cannot be imposed on building owners by adjoining owners. Michael Paget analyses the judgment.’
Local Government Lawyer, 14th April 2023
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Katie Gray discusses the Court of Appeal decision in Power & Kyson v Shah [2023] EWCA Civ 239 and the impact it has on the Party Wall Act 1996.’
Tanfield Chambers, 24th March 2023
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘General counsel and a City firm have come under repeated criticism in a damning report into governance issues at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.’
Law Society's Gazette, 13th September 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘There was inadequate evidence to conclude that a lease was ‘unsatisfactory’ for the purposes of s.35 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (‘the 1987 Act’), and an FTT order varying the lease was overturned. The FTT decision finding no prejudice due to a lack of expert evidence was also set aside: this decision could not stand in circumstances where an application to adjourn to obtain expert evidence had been refused due to their being an expert surveyor on the panel.’
Tanfield Chambers, 29th November 2019
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘This case has important ramifications in the electronic communications sector. It settles a narrow but important point—if an operator thinks a site is suitable but is not sure, can it survey the site and gain access for that purpose? The Court of Appeal determined that such a right was part and parcel of Code right 3(d), which grants a right to undertake ‘works’ which are ‘in connection with’ installation and other specified matters. The Court of Appeal held that an inspection (called a multi-skilled visit, or MSV, in the jargon) constituted ‘works’, and that it was ‘in connection with’ installation where its purpose was to determine finally whether installation should occur. Of wider importance is the fact that the Court of Appeal rejected the suggestion that a claim for rights on an interim basis under para 26 had to be accompanied by a claim for rights on a final basis under para 20. Unlike para 27, which links temporary rights with final rights, there is no such linkage in para 26. This frees up parties to make para 26 agreements and seek tribunal approval if they wish to enter into short-term agreements without automatic security of tenure under Part V of the Code, an option which is of great advantage to both operators and site providers.’
Falcon Chambers, 28th November 2019
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘The question of just how wide a party wall surveyor’s jurisdiction is to award compensation to an adjoining owner (under section 7(2) of the Party Wall Act 1996) has been the subject of a considerable amount of debate among party wall surveyors, so every opportunity for judicial scrutiny and clarification should be welcomed. Therefore, the slightly unusual circumstances that unfolded in the 2012 unreported case of Davis v Trustees of 2 Mulberry Walk provides us with some useful guidance in relation to the operation of section 7(2).’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 17th July 2019
‘Picture this scenario. The parties’ contract provides that when there is a dispute, an adjudicator is to be appointed from a panel of three, which the parties have already agreed on. In the alternative, if the parties cannot agree the identity of the three panel adjudicators, they will be nominated by the President of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) as the adjudicator nominating body (ANB). In the event, the parties fail to agree on who the three should be, and then one of them is unhappy with who the CIArb selects. This scenario played out before Jefford J earlier this year. It was, in effect, a dispute about a dispute, but led to some interesting comments from the judge about adjudicator nomination.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 4th June 2019
‘Non-domestic rating is not something we usually cover on this blog. It is, after all, not about housing. But the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) in Gardiner & Theobold LLP v Jackson (Valuation Officer) [2018] UKUT 253 (LC) goes much wider.’
Nearly Legal, 13th August 2018
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘As construction lawyers, most of us have had experience with claims concerning the financial loss and/or damage to property arising from a negligent survey of a house. The facts of such cases tend to follow a pattern:
– Prospective purchasers instruct a surveyor to produce a report before deciding whether to buy a particular property.
– The report concludes that the house is in sound structural condition
– The prospective purchasers rely on said report in deciding to purchase the property.
– After moving in, they discover that in fact the house suffers from damage, defects or some other risk not disclosed in the survey.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 1st August 2018
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘As construction lawyers, most of us have had experience with claims concerning the financial loss and/or damage to property arising from a negligent survey of a house.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 1st August 2018
‘The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) should investigate whether there are regulatory barriers to law firms that become alternative business structures (ABSs) providing other professional services such as accountancy and surveying, rather than vice versa, a report it commissioned has recommended.’
Legal Futures, 10th May 2018
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Two recent cases, one in the Court of Appeal, the other in the Supreme Court, have created significant uncertainty around the acceptability of email service. It seems that there may now be a disparity between the CPR and the Party Wall Act 1996, despite the similarities in the wording of the relevant provisions for the two regimes.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 14th March 2018
‘Third surveyors, the impartial arbiters of the party wall world, rarely feature prominently in party wall litigation. However, there have been two recent County Court cases in which the selection and purported removal of third surveyors has been considered by the Court, in both cases HHJ Bailey in the County Court at Central London.’
Tanfield Chambers, 2nd February 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The issue in this Upper Tribunal case was whether LB Southwark was entitled charge the leaseholders for works to replace communal doors and front entrance doors carried out during fire safety improvement works on the estate (some 10 block of flats).’
Nearly Legal, 29th January 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A surveyor facing a professional negligence claim will only be able to argue a margin of error greater than 15% in the most exceptional of circumstances, the High Court has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 24th November 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A lender was entitled to recover the full amount of a refinancing loan it granted after relying on a negligent property valuation, and not just the ‘top-up’ funding, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 6th July 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The duty to warn arises as no more than an aspect of the duty to act with the skill and care of an ordinarily competent professional. The existence of the duty recognises that in some circumstances the professional must go beyond what is specified as the desired performance in a contract (e.g. carrying out a design) and account for any risks of which he is aware by virtue of that expertise and warn others who may not be so aware.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 19th April 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has suggested that a commercial mortgage-backed security (CMBS) issuer would be entitled to sue a surveyor for a potentially negligent valuation, despite overturning the finding of negligence itself.’
OUT-LAW.com, 6th November 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Windermere Marina Village v Wild [2014] UKUT 163 (LC) is an important decision about the vexed question of apportionment that arises in many residential service charge disputes.’
NearlyLegal, 2nd June 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Patel and another v Peters and others [2014] EWCA Civ 335; [2014] WLR (D) 147
‘Where the surveyor of a party involved in a dispute over building works affecting adjoining properties served a request under section 10(7) of the Party Wall etc Act 1996 on the surveyor of the other party that he act effectively in respect of the subject matter referred to in the request within ten days, after which, if he did not so act, the requesting surveyor became entitled to act ex parte in respect of the matter, a continuing state of affairs was created so that the other party’s surveyor might still act effectively after that ten-day period, thereby precluding the requesting surveyor from acting ex parte, provided that the requesting surveyor had not yet proceeded so to act.’
WLR Daily, 27th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024