Landmark Cases that Shaped Party Wall Advice

The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 has been the key framework for resolving disputes over shared walls and adjacent construction in England and Wales. But how should you apply the Act in tricky real-world situations? Over the years, landmark cases have shaped party wall advice by clarifying these grey areas.

From early disputes in the late 90s to recent High Court decisions, the courts have interpreted the Act’s provisions and set precedents that every property owner, surveyor, and legal professional should know.

In this article, we’ll explore landmark cases that shaped Party Wall advice - summarizing each case’s facts, the court’s decision, and its impact on common practices under the Act. We’ll see how these rulings interface with the Act in plain English, using real-world examples to illustrate their importance.

Louis v Sadiq (1997): Retrospective Liability and Common Law Rights

One of the first landmark cases that shaped Party Wall advice was Louis v Sadiq in 1997.

Background

In this case, Mr. Sadiq (the building owner) carried out major works on his terraced house without serving any party wall notice to his neighbours, Mr. and Mrs. Louis. He demolished and rebuilt parts of his house, removing the front and rear walls, which left the shared party wall unrestrained. This caused damage to the party wall and put the adjacent Louis property at risk.

The Louis’s obtained an injunction to stop Sadiq’s works until he followed the procedures set out in the Party Wall Act. Eventually, Mr. Sadiq did serve a late notice under the (then new) 1996 Act, and surveyors made party wall Awards to allow completion of works and require Sadiq to repair the damage at his own expense.

However, the Louis’s had suffered financial losses because the damage delayed the sale of their house. They sued Mr. Sadiq for these losses (e.g. extra mortgage interest and increased costs of a new home they were building abroad) even after the party wall award was in place.

In Court

On appeal, Mr. Sadiq argued that once he served a party wall notice and surveyors made an award, the Act’s dispute resolution mechanism should override the neighbours’ common law rights, such as suing for nuisance or negligence. In other words, he claimed the Act’s process “replaced” any normal legal claims once it kicked in.

The Court of Appeal firmly rejected that idea. It dismissed Sadiq’s appeal, confirming that the late party wall award had “no retrospective curative effect on the earlier unlawful works”.

In plain terms, a building owner cannot evade liability for pre-notice, wrongful construction by later complying with the Act. The Act’s protections don’t magically cure past breaches.

Impact in Practice - Landmark Cases that Shaped Party Wall Advice

Louis v Sadiq set the tone that failing to follow the Act from the start can leave a building owner fully exposed to common law claims.

Party wall surveyors and advisors often cite this case to warn clients that if they fail to serve proper notice and cause damage, the neighbours can sue them for all resulting losses—regardless of any later award.

For adjoining owners, this case was reassuring – it showed that the Act doesn’t take away your normal legal rights if your neighbour breaks the rules.

In practical advice: always serve the notice before work starts. If you don’t, an award issued after the fact won’t erase the wrongdoing or the liability.

In short, Louis v Sadiq confirmed that the Act does not serve as a 'get out of jail free' card for unauthorized work; parties may still pursue common law remedies, such as injunctions and damages, for the period when the Act was not followed.

Davies v Wise (2006): The Limits of Access Rights Under the Act

Can a building owner use the Party Wall Act to insist on access to a neighbour’s land for convenience, even when the work isn’t exactly on the party wall? Davies v Wise (2006) answered this and became a landmark case shaping party wall surveyors’ advice on access rights.

Background

In this case, the building owners (Davies) planned an extension built right up to the boundary line between their property and their neighbours (the Wises). To build the side wall of their new extension and finish the roof, the Davieses needed access to the Wises’ side—essentially to work from their neighbour’s driveway, as the houses were detached but close together. The Davies’ served notices under Section 1(5) (for building a new wall at the line of junction) and Section 6 (for excavations) of the Act, and when the Wises refused access, the matter went to a party wall surveyor (acting as “adjudicator”). The appointed surveyor actually made an award granting permission for the building owners to enter the neighbours’ land to carry out the works needed for the extension.

In Court

The Wises (adjoining owners) weren’t happy with this and appealed the award in court, arguing that the surveyor had overstepped his powers. The County Court (Judge Pearl) agreed with the neighbours and allowed the appeal, effectively overturning the access permission. The judgment clarified that the Act’s right of entry (Section 8) only allows entry for doing work “in pursuance of the Act” – meaning works that are actually authorized by the Act’s provisions. Here, the proposed works were not covered by Sections 1, 2 or 6 in the way the building owner assumed. Finishing an extension wall on your own land (even at the boundary) is not one of the specified works that the Act entitles you to do with or without your neighbour’s consent.

The court held the surveyor had no jurisdiction to authorize a general trespass for construction convenience; he can only allow access for the limited purposes the Act covers. In essence, you can’t use a party wall award as a blanket license to enter a neighbour’s property if the work isn’t strictly a “party wall work” under the Act. The judge also noted that there’s a separate law (the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992) that permits access in some cases for essential repairs, but not for new construction. The Court stated that the Party Wall Act was 'not intended to drive a coach and horses through those provisions,' meaning that parties must not misuse the Act to carry out works it was never meant to authorise.

Impact in Practice - Landmark Cases that Shaped Party Wall Advice

After Davies v Wise, party wall surveyors became much more cautious about assuming the Act can be used to force access for all types of work. The case highlighted a clear limit: if the work doesn’t fall under the Act’s defined categories (such as building a new party wall astride the boundary, repairing a party wall, or cutting into a party structure, etc.), then the Act’s procedures (and its Section 8 right of entry) do not apply.

For real-world scenarios, building owners learned that if, say, you want to plaster or paint the outside of a new extension wall that faces your neighbour, you cannot simply rely on a party wall notice or award to get onto their land – you might need the neighbour’s permission or a court order under other legislation.

Surveyors now advise: use the Act for what it’s meant for. For anything else (like purely private construction on your land that just happens to require access), you’ll need to negotiate a license with your neighbour or explore the Access to Neighbouring Land Act if applicable. Davies v Wise ultimately reinforced that the Party Wall Act is not a catch-all tool for every boundary issue, thereby shaping more careful, Act-compliant advice on rights of access.

Zissis v Lukomski (2006): Appealing Awards and Surveyor Authority

What happens if you think a party wall surveyor’s award is wrong or beyond their powers? Zissis v Lukomski (2006) is a pivotal case that clarified the procedure for challenging or appealing a party wall award.

Background

Mrs. Zissis, a building owner, was unhappy with parts of a party wall award (in fact an “addendum award”) made in a dispute with her neighbour Mr. Lukomski.

She initially tried to appeal the award by filing a claim under Civil Procedure Rule Part 8 (a general court claim procedure), but the county court judge threw it out, saying she should have used the proper appeal mechanism for party wall awards.

In Court

The case went up to the Court of Appeal, which used Zissis v Lukomski to draw an important procedural line: an appeal under Section 10(17) of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 must follow the statutory appeal route, which aligns with CPR Part 52 (appeals), not an ordinary Part 8 claim.

In short, party wall awards are treated as statutory decisions that you can appeal to the county court within 14 days, and you must do it in the format of an appeal (with the court effectively re-hearing the dispute), rather than starting a new lawsuit. Mrs. Zissis learned this the hard way – her attempt via the wrong procedure was dismissed, and the Court of Appeal confirmed that was correct, emphasizing that clear guidelines were needed for handling such appeals.

Equally significant, Zissis v Lukomski addressed what to do if an award is arguably invalid or beyond the surveyors’ powers. Normally, if you miss the 14-day deadline to appeal, the award becomes binding.

But this case (and others around that time) clarified that if a surveyor’s award is “ultra vires” (Latin for beyond powers), you don’t necessarily have to appeal within 14 days – you can ask the court to declare the award null and void at any time. In Zissis, it was held that when a surveyor makes a decision outside the scope of the Act, an affected party can apply to the court for a declaration that the award is invalid (null). For example, if an award purported to resolve a matter that the Act doesn’t cover at all, that award could be attacked as a nullity rather than just appealed. This principle has been crucial in later cases (often cited as an “alternative route” to challenge an award).

Download the Judgement

Impact in Practice - Landmark Cases that Shaped Party Wall Advice

Zissis v Lukomski has had a lasting impact on how surveyors and parties handle disputes.

First, it underscored the strict 14-day time limit for appeals – if you get an award and dislike it, you must act fast. Courts will refuse any appeal filed late, no matter how strong your case, because the deadline is rigid. This has shaped advice to adjoining owners and building owners alike: don’t delay if you want to challenge an award. Surveyors often remind owners of this ticking clock when they serve awards.

Second, the case reassured that surveyors must stay within their statutory remit – if they go beyond (for instance, awarding something like an injunction or legal costs that they shouldn’t, as in Reeves v Blake below), those parts of an award won’t hold up. Parties now know that a blatantly flawed award (e.g. one made without jurisdiction) can be struck down as invalid.

Consequently, party wall surveyors are careful to word awards within the confines of the Act, and if there’s a truly off-base award, lawyers might skip the normal appeal window and directly seek a court declaration that the award is void.

In summary, Zissis v Lukomski shaped party wall advice by clarifying the appeal process and reinforcing that the Act’s dispute resolution, while generally final, is limited to what the law empowers surveyors to decide.

Reeves v Blake (2009): Can Surveyors Award Legal Costs?

Reeves v Blake in 2009 addressed a common practical question: can party wall surveyors make one side pay the other’s legal costs, especially if court action was threatened due to party wall issues? This case became a key authority on the limits of surveyors’ powers regarding costs for court proceedings.

Background

The scenario was as follows: Ms. Blake, a building owner, planned extensive works including excavations for a new basement flat, and she did serve notices under the Act. An initial award found one notice invalid but allowed certain excavation work under another notice.

However, Blake started digging before the surveyors had agreed on all the necessary safeguards in a second award. Her neighbour, Ms. Reeves (the adjoining owner), got alarmed because no final method had been agreed for the excavation near her garage. Reeves prepared to seek a court injunction to stop the work – she even drafted High Court proceedings – but Blake gave undertakings to pause the project, so Reeves ultimately didn’t file the lawsuit.

Later, when the surveyors (now the two remaining surveyors, after one resigned) issued the second award, they not only authorized Blake’s works with conditions but also ordered Blake to pay Reeves £7,651.49 + VAT for Reeves’s legal costs incurred in preparing the injunction case that never went to court.

Essentially, the surveyors thought it fair that the building owner (who had jumped the gun) should cover the neighbour’s solicitor fees. Blake (building owner) appealed this part of the award. The county court (Judge Viljoen) struck out the legal cost award, and Reeves (the neighbour) then appealed to the Court of Appeal to reinstate those costs.

In Court

The Court of Appeal sided with the building owner, firmly ruling that party wall surveyors do not have authority to award costs for potential or actual court proceedings between the neighbours.

The judges, led by Lord Justice Etherton, clarified a few points. They acknowledged that Section 10(12)(c) of the Act lets surveyors determine “any other matter arising out of or incidental to the dispute,” and Section 10(13)(c) lets them award “reasonable costs incurred in consequence of the dispute”. But, crucially, the Act’s definition of “dispute” is limited to the kind of disputes the Act covers – basically the disagreement over the works outlined in the notice.

If an adjoining owner is preparing to sue for trespass or nuisance (common law actions) because the building owner didn’t follow the Act properly, that litigation is outside the Act’s process. The court stressed that party wall surveyors are not judges and have no business awarding costs related to court injunctions or other legal claims.

They noted that Parliament designed the Act to avoid the need for litigation, not to facilitate one side’s litigation at the other’s expense. So, allowing surveyors to award legal costs for an unissued trespass lawsuit would go beyond the Act’s intent.

Only a court can decide on costs of court proceedings (and then typically only if the case is actually filed and decided). In summary, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the surveyors’ powers to award costs stop at the boundaries of the Act’s dispute – they can award fees for surveyors, engineers, or making good damage, etc., but not the neighbour’s solicitor fees for an injunction that lies in the realm of common law.

Download the Judgement

Impact in Practice - Landmark Cases that Shaped Party Wall Advice

Reeves v Blake has been hugely influential in party wall surveying practice. Before this case, some adjoining owners might have assumed they could recover legal fees for writing “lawyer’s letters” or preparing injunction applications through the party wall award. After Reeves, it’s clear they usually cannot. Surveyors now generally refuse to include a neighbour’s legal bills in an award (unless perhaps those costs were incurred purely in the context of the surveyors’ own proceedings under the Act).

The case reinforced that if a situation escalates to potential court action, those costs are a matter for the court, not the surveyors. For adjoining owners, the practical takeaway is: if you spend money on solicitors because your neighbour isn’t following the Act, you might only get those costs back by actually going to court and winning – you can’t count on the party wall award to reimburse you.

It also signals to building owners that, while they dodged paying legal costs in Reeves, they should not view this as a loophole to act recklessly. The reason Blake didn’t have to pay Reeves’s solicitor fees via the award is because the court expects such issues to be handled in court if needed (where the outcome could have been even worse for Blake if an injunction was granted).

In essence, Reeves v Blake shaped party wall advice by drawing a line between the Act’s dispute resolution and outside litigation: surveyors handle the former (and its costs), courts handle the latter.

Patel v Peters (2014): Ex Parte Awards and Surveyor Disputes

What if the two appointed party wall surveyors can’t agree – can one of them just go solo and make an award by themselves? Patel v Peters (2014) is a leading case that answered this by interpreting Sections 10(6) and 10(7) of the Act, which allow a surveyor to act ex parte (alone) in certain circumstances.

Background

In this case, the building owners (the Patels) and the adjoining owners each had surveyors – Mr. Justin Burns for the Patels and Mr. Grant Wright for the neighbours – and a third surveyor was also selected in case of disputes. Initially, everything went normally: they agreed on some awards in 2011 regarding the Patels’ works.

The trouble arose over Mr. Wright’s fees for his services as the adjoining owners’ surveyor. Mr. Wright billed around £13,500 based on time spent, which Mr. Burns felt was excessive. Burns believed fees should be reasonable for the job (not just whatever hours were recorded) and refused to sign off the full amount. This disagreement escalated, and communication broke down between the two surveyors.

Under Section 10(7) of the Act, if one surveyor “refuses or neglects to act” for 10 days after a request, the other surveyor can proceed to make an award alone.

Mr. Wright invoked this procedure: he formally wrote to Burns requesting action on the fees, and when he felt Burns hadn’t substantively responded in 10 days, Wright went ahead and made “ex parte” awards awarding himself his fees without Burns’s agreement. In fact, Burns did respond after the holidays, within about 16 days, still disagreeing on the fee calculation and suggesting using the third surveyor, but Wright had already issued the awards by then.

The Patels (building owners) appealed, arguing that Burns had not actually “neglected to act” – he was actively engaged, just not agreeing – so Wright had no right to act alone.

In Court

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Patels. It clarified that Section 10(7)’s 10-day rule is not an automatic cutoff if the other surveyor eventually responds before any solo action is taken. Lord Justice Richards emphasized that the law’s intent is to encourage surveyors to cooperate or use the neutral third surveyor, rather than immediately resort to one-sided decisions.

In this case, even though Mr. Burns’s reply came after 10 days, it was still effective action because Mr. Wright had not yet finalized his ex parte award by the time Burns responded. Burns showed he was not ignoring the issue – he provided a reasoned stance (that the fees were too high and should be assessed differently) and even invited Wright to refer the matter to the third surveyor.

That is a far cry from “neglecting to act.” The Court held that a “reasoned disagreement” is not the same as a failure to act. Therefore, Mr. Wright’s unilateral awards were invalid because the preconditions of Section 10(7) weren’t truly met – Burns had not refused or failed to act, he was just at odds with Wright on the merits. The 10-day rule was interpreted flexibly: if the other surveyor engages (even a bit late) and no ex parte action has been taken yet, then you can’t ignore them and rush to an award.

Download the Judgement

Impact in Practice - Landmark Cases that Shaped Party Wall Advice

Patel v Peters has become essential reading for party wall surveyors. It prevents over-hasty “ex parte” awards. Surveyors now understand that acting unilaterally is a last resort, only justified when the other surveyor is truly unresponsive or incapable of acting – not just because of a stubborn dispute.

In day-to-day terms, if two surveyors hit an impasse (for example, on fees or methodology), they should call in the agreed third surveyor to adjudicate, rather than one of them going rogue.

The case also reassures building owners and adjoining owners that their appointed surveyor can’t be sidelined lightly. As long as your surveyor is engaging in the process (even if tough or disagreeable), the other side can’t just cut them out after an arbitrary deadline. This fosters more genuine dialogue or proper escalation to a third surveyor when needed.

Additionally, Patel v Peters implicitly reminded surveyors about fee disputes: it highlighted that fees must be justified as “reasonable,” not simply whatever a surveyor clocks in time (since the whole conflict arose from a challenge to hours billed). Surveyors now more often negotiate fees or use the third surveyor to settle them, rather than pulling the ex parte trigger. In short, this landmark case shaped party wall advice by promoting collaboration over confrontation: use the Act’s built-in dispute resolution (the third surveyor) instead of one-sided actions, unless one surveyor has completely abandoned their duty.

Ormiston-Kilsby v Fattahi (2019): Ignoring the Act Has Consequences

If a building owner simply doesn’t bother with the Party Wall Act at all – no notice, no agreement – what can an affected neighbour do? Ormiston-Kilsby v Fattahi (2019) is a cautionary tale that underscores the mantra “no notice, no Act” and the dire consequences for ignoring the law.

Background

In this case, Dr. Fattahi (building owner) proceeded to construct a loft extension on his semi-detached house in Oxford without serving any party wall notice to his neighbour, Mrs. Ormiston-Kilsby.

The works involved notifiable activities (like cutting into or raising a party wall, and certainly adjacent excavation/structure for the dormer), but Fattahi, by his own admission, completely overlooked his obligations – despite even being reminded by his contractors in writing!. He assumed the builders would handle everything, and construction started with no formal notice or party wall award in place.

The neighbour discovered the works only after they began – scaffolding had gone up and the extension framing was affecting her property (notably, it was built so close that it interfered with a chimney flue on her side used for her heating system). She immediately raised objections and requested party wall surveyors be appointed, but by then the damage was done – work stopped, yet an unfinished structure was left towering and causing nuisance for years.

In Court

Mrs. Ormiston-Kilsby sued Dr. Fattahi, seeking a mandatory injunction to remove the offending extension and damages for trespass and nuisance. Importantly, because no notice was ever served, the dispute never went through any party wall surveyors – it went straight to court.

The court (County Court at Oxford, HHJ Vincent) delivered a stark outcome. It found Dr. Fattahi in breach of the Act for failing to serve notice, which meant he lost all protections of the Act and was liable under common law.

The judge had no sympathy for the argument that an informal heads-up letter (which Fattahi claimed to have dropped through the door) was good enough – it wasn’t a valid notice at all, lacking content and not actually intended as an Act notice. Because the Act wasn’t invoked properly, everything proceeded under general law: the scaffolding on the neighbour’s land was a trespass, and the extension as built (encroaching on the space near the flue, etc.) was deemed a continuing nuisance to the neighbour’s property rights.

Upholding property rights, the judge granted the mandatory injunction: Dr. Fattahi was ordered to remove the entire extension that had been built without notice. Yes, this meant tearing down substantial work – an expensive demolition for the building owner.

Additionally, the court awarded the neighbour about £9,800 in special damages for repairs and losses caused, plus £2,000 in general damages for her inconvenience and stress. Dr. Fattahi was also on the hook for legal costs, and his attempt to blame the contractors via a third-party claim was rejected (the court noted that the duty to comply with the Act was the owner’s non-delegable responsibility).

Download the Judgement

Impact in Practice - Landmark Cases that Shaped Party Wall Advice

Ormiston-Kilsby v Fattahi sent shockwaves through the surveying and property community as a modern example of “ignore the Act at your peril”.

It dramatically illustrated that a building owner who skips the notice procedure can be forced by the courts to undo completed work – a result that many developers might assume “would never happen” but indeed can in egregious cases.

Party wall surveyors often mention this case to clients as a warning: the cost of compliance (a bit of time and maybe minor delays) is nothing compared to the cost of breaking the law (imagine having to dismantle a new extension and pay damages). It underscores that serving a valid notice is an absolute must – an informal letter or telling the neighbour late is not enough.

If you fail to do so, you cannot later force an adjoining owner into the Act’s arbitration; instead, the neighbour can go straight for an injunction, as happened here. For adjoining owners, this case is empowering: it shows courts will uphold their rights if a neighbour builds without following the Act, even to the point of demolition.

Since this and the Shah v Power ruling, “no notice, no Act” has been a common phrase – meaning if no notice is served, the Act’s dispute resolution can’t be used by the wrongdoer, and the neighbour can use common law remedies (like suing for nuisance or trespass) freely.

In practical advice terms, after Ormiston-Kilsby, surveyors and lawyers will advise an adjoining owner to swiftly seek an injunction when unauthorized works start, because the courts are willing to grant one in such cases.

For building owners, the case is a harsh lesson: always, always comply with the Act’s requirements upfront, because once you’ve lost the Act’s protection, you stand to lose a lot more (time, money, and your new construction) under common law.

Shah v Power (2023): “No Notice, No Act” Confirmed by the High Court

The principle of “no notice, no Act” was further solidified by the High Court in Shah v Power (2022 EWHC 209 (QB), reported in 2023).

This case confirmed beyond doubt that an adjoining owner cannot unilaterally invoke the Act’s procedures when a building owner has failed to serve notice.

Background

In Shah v Power, Mr. Shah (the building owner) carried out notifiable works (reportedly including removal of a chimney breast on a party wall) without serving any party wall notice.

In response, the adjoining owner, Mr. Power, took matters into his own hands: he appointed a party wall surveyor for himself and even appointed one for Mr. Shah (as the Act would allow if a dispute had arisen under Section 10). Those two surveyors went on to make an award that, among other things, awarded about £4,000 in damages to Mr. Power for the trespass/damage and included fees for the surveyors.

This was all done without any notice under the Act ever being served by the building owner. Mr. Shah (who had never agreed to any of this and never formally “disputed” under the Act since he hadn’t started the process) unsurprisingly did not accept the authority of that award. He challenged it in court, essentially asking the court to declare the award invalid due to no jurisdiction.

In Court

The High Court (Mr. Justice Eyre) emphatically agreed with the building owner. The judge held that the only way to engage the Party Wall Act’s dispute mechanism is for the building owner to serve a valid notice (or for both parties to agree to proceed under the Act).

If that doesn’t happen, an adjoining owner cannot bypass the required trigger by appointing a surveyor themselves or claiming a “dispute” exists out of thin air. In Shah v Power, since Mr. Shah never served notice, the Act’s machinery was never properly set in motion. Therefore, the surveyors had no authority, and the award purportedly made was a nullity.

The court made it clear: an Adjoining Owner cannot unilaterally invoke the Act; surveyors cannot be appointed and no valid Award can be made without the Building Owner’s notice.

This case also clarified that the Party Wall Act “is not a remedy available to a disgruntled adjoining owner when the building owner has not invoked the Act.” In such situations, the adjoining owner’s remedy is to go to court – e.g. to seek an injunction or damages for trespass/nuisance – rather than trying to force a pseudo-party-wall procedure.

Essentially, it echoed the lesson of Ormiston-Kilsby but from the opposite angle: the Act grants special privileges (like doing trespassory works lawfully) only if its process is followed. If not, you’re back in the realm of ordinary law, and the neighbour can’t drag you into an Act process you never initiated.

Download the Judgement

Impact in Practice - Landmark Cases that Shaped Party Wall Advice

Shah v Power has become the go-to case to cite when explaining the limits of the Act’s jurisdiction. For party wall professionals, it removed any lingering ambiguity: if a building owner doesn’t serve notice, a surveyor should not proceed as if there’s a dispute under the Act. Any award made in such circumstances is void and unenforceable.

This has shaped advice to adjoining owners: as frustrating as it is when a neighbour ignores the Act, you cannot appoint a surveyor under the Act and get an award on your own.

Your recourse is to use the courts (which, as we saw, will support you with injunctions or damages). It also has influenced strategy – adjoining owners (or their surveyors/solicitors) now often send a strong letter urging the building owner to serve a notice, warning that otherwise the only option is court action.

For building owners, ironically, Shah v Power can be a double-edged sword: while it protected Mr. Shah from an improperly obtained award (so a building owner might think, “If I don’t serve notice, they can’t make me pay via an award!”), it leaves them open to worse – a court injunction or damages with legal costs.

In essence, the case reinforces that the Party Wall Act is a shield and a sword only when properly invoked by notice. If you skip that, you lose the shield (can’t legalize your trespasses) and the neighbour must escalate to the courts, not a surveyor. This clarity has certainly shaped modern party wall advice: always start with a notice, because “no notice, no Act” is now firmly the law.

Takeaways from Landmark Cases that Shaped Party Wall Advice

Always Serve a Notice (and Do It Properly): The golden rule under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 is to start the process with a valid notice to your neighbour. Cases like Ormiston-Kilsby v Fattahi and Shah v Power hammer home that “no notice, no Act” – if you don’t serve notice, you can’t later rely on the Act, and you may face severe consequences (injunctions, damages) in court. Building owners should treat the party wall notice as fundamental as planning permission or building control approval for their project.

The Act Isn’t Retroactive Magic: Louis v Sadiq taught that complying with the Act after the fact won’t erase liability for what you did before. In practical terms, don’t start notifiable work hoping to “fix it later” with an award – you could end up paying for all the trouble caused in the interim. Adjoining owners, remember that you retain your normal rights if the Act wasn’t followed initially, even if a late notice appears.

Surveyors’ Powers Have Boundaries: Party wall surveyors have broad authority to resolve “disputes arising out of the Act,” but they cannot deal with everything. Reeves v Blake underscores that surveyors cannot award legal costs or injunction-like remedies – those remain for courts. So, if you incur solicitor fees prepping for a court fight, don’t assume the award will cover it. Conversely, building owners shouldn’t fear that an award will hit them with their neighbour’s entire legal bill – it won’t, unless perhaps it’s legal costs directly related to the party wall process itself.

Use the Act for Act Matters (Access and Work Types): Davies v Wise is a reminder that the Act covers specific types of work (e.g. building a wall astride the boundary, works to an existing party wall, certain excavations). It’s not a free pass to enter your neighbour’s land for unrelated reasons. Surveyors will only award access or rights that the Act allows. For anything else – say you want scaffolding on your neighbour’s land just to build a new wall entirely on your side – you’ll need the neighbour’s consent or a different legal route.

Appeals Are Time-Sensitive and Technical: If you’re unhappy with a party wall award, Zissis v Lukomski showed you must appeal within 14 days and follow the proper appeal procedure. After two weeks, you’re generally stuck with the award. The only exception is if the award was beyond the surveyors’ power (ultra vires) – in that case, you might get it voided later. The takeaway is to act quickly and get legal advice immediately upon receiving an award you believe is wrong.

Surveyors Should Collaborate, Not Compete: Patel v Peters teaches that two surveyors appointed under the Act should make every effort to work together or involve the third surveyor, rather than one trying to outmanoeuvre the other with unilateral action. Ex parte awards are only for when a surveyor truly isn’t doing their job. So if you’re a building owner or adjoining owner and your surveyors disagree, expect them to call in the third surveyor – that’s normal and usually healthier than a split. As a client, you should encourage your surveyor to communicate and not deliberately delay, to avoid giving the other any excuse to act alone.

Common Law Rights Coexist with the Act: A consistent theme is that the Party Wall Act doesn’t eliminate common law rights unless it’s being properly used. It provides a pathway to do certain things that would otherwise be trespass or nuisance legally (with notice and an award). But if that path isn’t followed, the usual rules of property law apply. Adjoining owners should know they can still sue for damages or get an injunction for unlawful works (Louis v Sadiq, Ormiston-Kilsby). Building owners should know that following the Act is actually protecting them – it gives them rights they wouldn’t normally have (like access or causing minor damage if they compensate) and avoids costly litigation. In short, use the Act as a shield and a forum – it’s there to help both sides if used correctly.

Conclusion - Landmark Cases that Shaped Party Wall Advice

The landmark cases that shaped party wall advice have turned what could be arcane legal principles into concrete guidance for everyday situations.

Whether you’re planning a basement dig or worried about your neighbour’s extension, these cases illuminate what to do (and what not to do).

The Party Wall etc. Act 1996, backed by these case law interpretations, strikes a balance between development rights and neighbourly protection. Anyone involved in party wall matters should take this practical lesson to heart: stay informed, follow the process, and don’t gamble on bending the rules.

With proper notices, cooperation, and, when needed, the input of experienced party wall surveyors (and awareness of these key legal decisions), you can navigate party wall issues successfully and avoid ending up in a courtroom drama of your own.

Get in Touch

Need help or advice on Party Wall or neighbourly matters?

For advice direct from one of our Surveyors, please call our Enquiry line on 020 4534 3135.

If you would rather we called you instead, please fill in our Contact form and we will be in touch.

For a quick online quote for Party Wall advice, send us the details of your project. For more articles on all aspects of the Party Wall Act see our blog.

For advice direct from one of our Surveyors, please call our Enquiry line on 020 4534 3135.

If you are planning work that is covered by the Act, or if you have received notice of work from a neighbour and want advice on how best to protect your property please contact: