Power v Shah
Section 10 is not a free-standing jurisdiction over every dispute connected with notifiable work.
A Coburns Party Wall resource
The cases that shape party wall practice.
Search important Party Wall etc. Act 1996 decisions by case, topic or section, with practical lessons for building owners, adjoining owners and surveyors.
Why case law matters
The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 provides the framework, but the courts explain how that framework operates when facts, rights and procedures are disputed. Case law helps show where the limits of the Act lie, when surveyors have jurisdiction and how apparently simple provisions work in practice.
Guidance and templates are useful starting points, but they are not substitutes for judgment. Applying them blindly can be poor practice. Every appointment turns on its own facts, drawings, notices, rights and evidence. Party Wall Surveyors should ask themselves: is it correct, necessary and supported in this particular case?
Good surveyors test the proposition, check the authority behind it and challenge what is put before them. The question is not “is this normally done?” but “is it correct, necessary and supported in this particular matter?”
That is why this resource concentrates not only on what each case decided, but on what it means in practice — and, where important, what the case did not decide.
Case library
Shah v Power & Anor
Explains in detail why s10 does not create a general neighbour-dispute tribunal.
Taylor v Jones; Taylor v Spriggs
Post-work damage does not automatically make the building owner liable for curing every pre-existing defect.
Reeves v Blake
Surveyors cannot determine or fund through an award matters lying wholly outside the Act.
Gray v Elite Town Management
Surveyors balance statutory rights with the duty not to cause unnecessary inconvenience; jurisdiction remains bounded by the Act.
Patel v Peters
Ex parte powers are exceptional and their statutory conditions must exist when exercised.
Kaye v Lawrence
Entitlement to request security is broad, but amount and reasonableness remain fact-sensitive.
Roadrunner Properties Ltd v Dean
Failure to use the Act can remove contemporaneous safeguards and make later factual disputes harder.
Knight v Goulandris
Service is substantive because it starts a very short appeal period.
Freetown Ltd v Assethold Ltd
Correct service can determine whether the statutory timetable has begun.
Seeff v Ho
Garden-fence consent is not a substitute for proper statutory and planning procedures.
Rodrigues v Sokal
A later valid statutory process can have consequences different from a unilateral attempt to impose the Act where no notice is ever served.
Group One Investments Ltd v Keane
Reinforces the boundary between statutory dispute resolution and court litigation.
Lea Valley Development Ltd v Derbyshire
s7(2) is a compensation provision requiring careful causal and quantum analysis.
Onigbanjo v Pearson
Consent is not the end of the Act if a later statutory damage/compensation dispute arises.
Property Supply and Development Ltd v Verity
Section 10 appointment powers are prescriptive and should not be improvised.
Chaturachinda v Fairholme
Whether a foundation is 'special' depends on its actual construction, not merely the presence of reinforcement somewhere in the scheme.
Welter v McKeeve
Compensation is not a blank cheque; reasonableness and mitigation matter.
Amir-Siddique v Kowaliw
Fee disputes turn on reasonableness, work actually required and evidence.
Zissis v Lukomski
Use the statutory appeal route promptly rather than assuming a collateral challenge is safer.
Farrs Lane Development Ltd v Bristol Magistrates' Court
Unappealed awards can have serious enforcement consequences.
Subramaniam v City of London Magistrates Court
An award being conclusive does not cure unclear drafting or create an obligation it does not contain.
Manu v Euroview Estates
Not every procedural objection can safely be kept in reserve after active participation.
Breuer v Leccacorvi
Measure of loss depends on the actual loss and reasonableness of the proposed remedy.
Davis v Trustees of 2 Mulberry Walk
s7(2) is itself capable of generating a dispute under s10.
Schmid v Hulls
Notice defects and jurisdiction should be considered together with what the parties subsequently did.
SAI Ventures Ltd v Compar Properties Ltd
Material design changes may require fresh consideration of the notice rather than casual amendment.
Rega v Mills
Boundary ownership questions are not automatically transformed into s10 disputes.
Reeves v Young
Procedural objections should be made promptly, not after participating on a contrary basis.
Ormiston-Kilsby v Fatahi
Starting first and dealing with the Act later can expose an owner to injunction risk.
Nutt v Podger
Useful fact pattern, but later Power v Shah controls any broad proposition about unilateral retrospective awards.
Mohamed v Takhar
Private agreements cannot safely be assumed to disapply statutory requirements.
Mohamed & Lahrie v Antino & Stevens
Complexity does not enlarge surveyors' jurisdiction beyond the Act.
Mills v Savage
Preliminary jurisdiction points can dispose of substantial parts of a dispute.
May & Crown Ltd v Shipton
Not every procedural imperfection makes an award void.
Masters v 6 Bolton Road Ltd
Award administration should seek information genuinely necessary to assess statutory risk, not detail for its own sake.
Maddows v Fernandez
Do not assume every s10(17) appeal operates like a conventional narrow judicial review.
Longmire v Maldura
Appointed surveyors are not ordinary client advocates when exercising statutory functions.
Lion Homes (Sussex) Ltd v Brighton & Hove City Council
Compensation provisions must be read according to who is entitled and the statutory source of the claim.
Lacey v Baker
Party-wall appeals do not necessarily resolve every dispute between neighbours.
Kelliher v Ash Estates Holding Ltd
Damage claims may extend beyond a crack repair, but each head needs a legal and evidential basis.
K Group Holdings Inc v Saidco International
Do not assume calling an award 'void' removes all procedural/limitation difficulties.
Heathcote v Doal
Commencement timing and compliance with notices/awards can be decisive.
Gray v Elite Town Management
Party-wall litigation can generate substantial collateral damages issues outside the surveyors' jurisdiction.
Foxland Management Ltd v Redab Finchley Ltd
Surveyor files and reasoning may become relevant in later litigation.
Fenton v Lewis
Party-wall administration cannot substitute for resolving disputed ownership of the boundary.
Evans v Paterson
An appointment does not create an everlasting mandate over all future issues.
Edward H Whybrow Co Ltd v James
An award should authorise only works for which the Act supplies a right.
Chliaichfchtein v Wainbridge
Consequential compensation needs evidence; it is not automatically limited to physical repair.
Chliafchtein v Jessop
Claims against surveyors personally are distinct from statutory appeals against awards.
Bibizadeh v Dodosh
Useful persuasive reasoning should not be presented as binding precedent.
Basu v Baron
The 14-day period should be treated as absolute in practice.
Ash v Trimnell-Ritchard
Water ingress cases require evidence of source and causal mechanism, not assumptions based on timing.
Apexmaster Ltd v URC Thames North Trust
The Act does not create a general licence to trespass or oversail.
Walsh v PSB Management Ltd and others
Courts do not set aside awards merely because a party prefers a different technical view.
Yamin v Edwards
Appointment challenges depend heavily on the statutory steps and evidence of what the parties actually agreed.
Nelson's Yard Management Company v Eziefula
Useful where party-wall disputes spill into litigation, but not a core interpretation of the Act.
Gray v Elite Town Management
Use the later Court of Appeal decision for binding propositions.
Gyle-Thompson v Wall Street (Properties) Ltd
Still useful for the principle that statutory surveyors cannot invent powers, but wording of predecessor legislation must be handled cautiously.
Woodhouse v Consolidated Property Corporation Ltd
A later award cannot automatically absorb liability for an earlier common-law wrong.
Louis v Sadiq
The statutory scheme is not a retrospective release from existing tortious liability.
Frances Holland School v Wassef
Useful appointment authority but should be checked against later appellate cases.
Patsalides v Foye
Useful historically but Power v Shah now supplies binding modern jurisdiction guidance.
Dust v Marioni, Greenaway & McNulty
Published hourly rates alone do not determine recoverability; necessity and proportionality matter.
Davies & Sleep v Wise
Access under the Act is specific, not a general construction licence.
Important legal disclaimer
This case-law resource is provided by Coburns Party Wall for general information and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and is not a substitute for advice on the facts of a particular matter. Case summaries simplify judgments and should not be relied upon instead of the judgment itself. The relevance, precedential weight and effect of a decision may depend on the court, later authorities, the wording of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 and the particular facts. Unreported and County Court decisions may be persuasive rather than binding. Before relying on a case, check the full judgment, its subsequent treatment and the current law. Coburns Party Wall accepts no responsibility for loss arising from reliance on this resource without appropriate professional or legal advice.