Party Wall Case Law Blake v Reeves

Party Wall Case Law Blake v Reeves (2009) serves as a key authority on the extent to which surveyors appointed under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 (“the Act”) can award legal costs incurred in connection with contemplated court proceedings.

This Court of Appeal case clarifies the boundary between surveyors' statutory authority and judicial discretion in awarding costs related to injunctions and other common law remedies.

Background Facts

Beatrice Blake, the Respondent, owned 1 Farlow Road, an end-of-terrace house. Christine Reeves, the Appellant, owned 143 Lower Richmond Road, which included a driveway adjacent to 1 Farlow Road. In 2007, Blake planned to demolish the house and construct three flats, including a basement flat that would require substantial excavations.

Blake served two notices under the Act on Reeves. One served under section 1(5) to construct a new wall on the boundary (the “first notice”). Another was served under section 6(1). This was due to the depth of proposed excavations relative to the foundations of Reeves’ garage (the “second notice”). A dispute arose over the validity of the notices and the scope of the intended works.

Following the standard procedure under section 10 of the Act:

Blake appointed Sara Burr as her surveyor.

Reeves appointed Simon Levy.

Both selected David Maycox as the third surveyor.

In the first award (20 November 2007), Maycox found the section 1 notice invalid but upheld the section 6 notice. Nonetheless, Blake initiated excavation work without waiting for a second award that would have clarified the scope and method of the construction activities. Blake acted on the assumption that the first award—although it invalidated the section 1 notice—still gave sufficient authority to proceed under the section 6 notice.

Blake's commencement of the excavation works triggered concern from Reeves, who viewed the actions as unauthorised and potentially unlawful under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, given that no formal award had yet been agreed on the method and manner of the basement excavation near her property.

Reeves, believing the works lacked authorisation without a further award, sought legal advice and prepared High Court proceedings to seek an injunction. Ultimately, Blake gave undertakings to stop the work, so Reeves did not issue a claim.

The Second Award and Legal Costs

After Burr resigned due to ill health and failed to appoint a replacement, the remaining two surveyors, Levy and Maycox, proceeded under section 10(10) of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, which permits two surveyors to continue in the absence of a third.

Levy and Maycox issued a second award (25 January 2008), which authorised the excavation work. It also ordered Blake to pay Reeves’ legal costs of £7,651.49 plus VAT. These were costs incurred in preparing for the injunction that was never issued.

Blake appealed the Second Award under section 10(17), and Judge Viljoen of the Wandsworth County Court struck out the direction awarding legal costs. Reeves then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Legal Question - Party Wall Case Law Blake v Reeves

Could surveyors, under section 10 of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, validly direct one party to pay the other's legal costs incurred in preparing, but not issuing, litigation related to a party wall dispute?

This turned on the interpretation of:

Section 10(12)(c): allowing awards to determine “any other matter arising out of or incidental to the dispute”.

Section 10(13)(c): allowing recovery of “reasonable costs incurred in... any other matter arising out of the dispute”.

Arguments on Appeal

For the Appellant (Reeves):

Counsel Nicholas Isaac argued that the surveyors’ wide powers under section 10(12)(c) and 10(13)(c) included the authority to award non-contentious legal costs.

He drew a distinction between contentious costs (reserved for courts) and non-contentious ones (which, he argued, surveyors could address).

Since the contemplated injunction had not been filed, these costs were non-contentious and fell within surveyors’ powers.

Isaac insisted that denying costs would unjustly penalise Reeves, who took steps only to prevent unlawful construction by Blake.

He warned against the absurdity of requiring parties to issue court proceedings merely to recover costs.

For the Respondent (Blake):

Counsel Stephen Bickford-Smith maintained that the 1996 Act did not extend to the costs of court proceedings or preparations for them.

He agreed that surveyors could award legal costs related to the party wall dispute itself but not litigation-related costs, even if proceedings were never issued.

The County Court Judgment

Judge Viljoen ruled that:

The Act aims to avoid litigation, not support or fund it.

The disputed legal costs related to threatened proceedings in trespass, nuisance, and breach of the Act—matters outside the statutory dispute resolution process.

Awarding such costs required judicial discretion, particularly where litigation costs were concerned.

Parliament could not have intended lay surveyors to make such decisions in the absence of procedural safeguards and judicial assessment.

Court of Appeal Judgment

The Court of Appeal (Etherton LJ, with Moses and Mummery LJJ concurring) upheld Judge Viljoen’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

Etherton LJ clarified that:

1. Surveyors have broad authority under section 10, but only in respect of disputes under the Act.

2. Disputes involving common law causes of action, like trespass or nuisance, lie outside the scope of section 10.

3. Preparations for legal proceedings, even if never pursued, fall outside the scope of the surveyors’ statutory jurisdiction.

4. Parliament specifically designed the statutory mechanism to avoid litigation, so it would be inconsistent to use it to support costs arising from non-compliance that triggered legal threats.

5. Surveyors cannot grant equitable remedies such as injunctions or award costs incurred in seeking them. Only courts have that jurisdiction.

6. There is no precedent in legislation for giving non-judicial bodies powers to award costs relating to unissued litigation where they have no power to adjudicate the underlying claim.

7. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 44.12A) permit recovery of costs in certain situations where disputes are resolved without proceedings, but these provisions do not extend to party wall surveyors.

The Court also rejected the analogy to arbitration. Arbitrators have jurisdiction to determine both liability and costs, unlike party wall surveyors.

Key Takeaways from Party Wall Case Law Blake v Reeves

Surveyors’ cost awards are limited to disputes under the 1996 Act.

Legal costs incurred in preparing for court proceedings cannot be recovered through a party wall award.

The Party Wall Act’s purpose is to avoid litigation, not support or fund the costs of engaging with it.

Surveyors’ powers are statutory and not analogous to arbitration.

Disputes under the Act must remain within the boundaries of statutory powers, and parties must turn to the courts for common law remedies and cost recovery associated with them.

Precedent affirms that surveyors may award reasonable costs, but only where those costs directly relate to resolving statutory disputes under the Act—not parallel legal actions.

Conclusion - Party Wall Case Law Blake v Reeves

The decision in Blake v Reeves confirms that the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 sets strict limits on the authority of appointed surveyors.

Surveyors must confine their remit to resolving disputes under the Act and avoid venturing into the domain of tort law or equitable relief.

Surveyors may award reasonable costs related to the party wall dispute process. But they have no power to compel payment for legal costs arising from external litigation—even if that litigation was only contemplated.

This judgment reinforces the intent of the Act as a dispute resolution mechanism to reduce litigation, not to subsidise its avoidance.

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 information on all aspects of Party Wall matters see the collection of articles in 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: