Onigbanjo v Pearson

Why this case matters

Onigbanjo v Pearson is important because it addresses Can a statutory dispute arise after initial consent, and what costs may surveyors award?. The recorded decision is that yes; consent to works does not prevent a later dispute arising under another provision of the Act. In practice, the case is relevant because consent is not the end of the Act if a later statutory damage/compensation dispute arises.

What happened

Adjoining owners had consented to the works; damage later arose and they invoked s10.

The practical significance of the background is that the court's conclusion must be read against the particular procedural and factual setting recorded above. A party wall authority should not be treated as deciding a wider proposition merely because similar terminology appears in another dispute.

Question before the court

Can a statutory dispute arise after initial consent, and what costs may surveyors award?

This is the issue around which the case should be read. In applying the decision, separate that legal question from other factual disagreements between the owners and from matters the court was not required to determine.

Decision

Yes; consent to works does not prevent a later dispute arising under another provision of the Act.

The decision should therefore be used for the proposition actually resolved by the court, rather than as a general answer to every dispute involving the same section of the Act.

What it means in practice

Consent is not the end of the Act if a later statutory damage/compensation dispute arises.

For surveyors, the useful discipline is to identify the statutory power or duty relied upon, establish that the factual preconditions are present, and then ask whether the proposed step is necessary and supported in this particular case.

What the case does not decide

This summary should not be read as extending the decision beyond the question identified above. It does not, without more, establish that the same result follows where the notices, appointments, works, evidence or procedural history are materially different. Check the full judgment and later authorities before treating the case as determinative of a new set of facts.

Building-owner lesson

Consent does not immunise later damage disputes.

Adjoining-owner lesson

An adjoining owner who consented can still invoke the relevant statutory dispute machinery if a qualifying dispute later arises.

Surveyor lesson

Identify the later statutory provision giving rise to the dispute.

Questions to ask before relying on this case

• Is the legal question in the present matter actually the same as the question decided here?
• Are the statutory notices, appointments and jurisdictional steps materially the same?
• Are there factual differences that could justify a different result?
• Has a later or higher authority qualified, distinguished or displaced the proposition?
• Is the proposed reliance correct, necessary and supported in this particular case?

Key passages / points

Frequently cited on later disputes and reasonable statutory costs.

Related cases

Reeves v Blake; Taylor v Jones