Overview
The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 is a short Act, but its practical application has been shaped by a significant body of court decisions and related legal principles.
This series looks at the cases that matter and explains why they still influence party wall practice.
Why case law matters
Party wall practice too often relies on habit, guidance notes or "industry norms". Those can be useful, but they are not the law.
The proper starting points are: - the Act; - the words of the notices and awards; - the limits of surveyor jurisdiction; - relevant court decisions; - the evidence in the particular case.
What this series covers
Across the series, we look at cases dealing with: - valid and invalid notices; - whether awards can be made without notice; - surveyor jurisdiction; - fees and proportionality; - damage and compensation; - access and easements; - service and procedural time limits; - common law principles that interact with party wall work.
Some decisions are directly under the Party Wall Act. Others are related cases that help explain procedure, nuisance, support, evidence or remedies.
Key cases covered
The series includes commentary on decisions such as: - Frances Holland School v Wassef; - Rees v Skerrett; - Saunders v Williams; - Godwin v Swindon Borough Council; - Patsalides v Foye; - Arena Property Services Ltd v Europa 2000 Ltd; - Roadrunner Properties Ltd v Dean; - Dust v Marioni, Greenaway and MacNulty; - Kaye v Lawrence; - Seef v Ho; - Shah v Power and Kyson; - Nutt v Veda Road Ltd.
The consistent message
The courts repeatedly show that: - procedure matters; - surveyors must understand their jurisdiction; - valid notices are fundamental; - custom and practice cannot override the Act; - fees must be proportionate; - parties who ignore the Act create avoidable risk.