Party Wall Case Law Chaturachinda v Fairholme

The Party Wall Case Law Chaturachinda v Fairholme (2015) stands as one of the most significant judicial decisions clarifying the interpretation of "special foundations" under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 which ultimately led to the now common term 'Bailey Rail'.

For surveyors, engineers, lawyers, and property owners contemplating basement extensions, this ruling provides critical guidance on the extent of adjoining owners’ consent rights and the limits of design flexibility.

In this detailed article, we explore the background of the dispute, the core legal issues, the competing arguments, and the judgment delivered by His Honour Judge Edward Bailey, all within the legal framework of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 ("the Act").

Background to the Dispute

The dispute arose between Mr and Mrs Fairholme, owners of 32 Abingdon Villas, London, and their neighbours, Mr and Mrs Chaturachinda (owners of 30 Abingdon Villas) and Abingdon Gardens Management Ltd (owners of 40 Abingdon Villas). The Fairholmes served notices under sections 3 and 6 of the Act in relation to their proposed basement works, which included the excavation of a new basement and construction of a rear extension.

The central issue revolved around whether the proposed works involved the installation of "special foundations" under section 7(4) of the Act. This provision requires adjoining owners to give written consent before anyone places special foundations on their land.

What are "Special Foundations"?

Section 20 of the Act defines 'special foundations' as:

“foundations in which an assemblage of beams or rods is employed for the purpose of distributing any load.”

Typically, this refers to reinforced concrete foundations incorporating steel reinforcement designed to spread loads, often used in modern basement construction. The importance of this definition stems from the adjoining owner’s statutory right to veto such foundations extending onto their land.

The Engineering Designs in Question

The Fairholmes’ design, prepared by Mr Pringuer-James, involved constructing a reinforced concrete basement box resting on mass concrete strip foundations – a method described during proceedings as a "reinforced box on concrete rails".

The adjoining owners argued that the designers deliberately engineered this design to circumvent the need for their consent. They maintained that the designers included the mass concrete strips solely to avoid the classification of 'special foundations' under the Act and that the strips served no real structural purpose.

The appointed Third Surveyor, Mr Alistair Redler, made several awards during the dispute and ultimately concluded that the works did not involve special foundations requiring adjoining owner consent. The adjoining owners appealed these decisions to the Central London County Court.

The Legal Framework of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996

The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 provides the statutory basis for carrying out building works close to neighbouring structures, balancing the interests of building owners and adjoining owners. The Act permits certain works that would otherwise amount to unlawful trespass or nuisance, but it also protects adjoining owners, particularly when builders propose more intrusive foundation designs.

Under section 7(4) of the Act:

“Nothing in this Act shall authorise the building owner to place special foundations on land of an adjoining owner without his previous consent in writing.”

This absolute veto is unique in the Act, offering adjoining owners significant control over foundation types used beneath shared or adjoining walls.

Arguments Presented by the Parties

The Building Owners’ Position

Mr Bickford-Smith, for the Fairholmes, argued that:

The reinforced concrete walls of the basement box were essentially walls, not foundations.

The mass concrete strips beneath these walls performed the role of foundations.

Since the mass concrete strips contained no steel reinforcement (no beams or rods), they could not be classified as special foundations.

The definition of "foundation" depends on where the wall rests, not on how loads are distributed beyond that point.

Therefore, they contended, the adjoining owners’ consent was not required.

The Adjoining Owners’ Position

Mr Isaac, representing both sets of adjoining owners, advanced two core arguments:

1. Artifice Argument: The design was an artificial construct devised to avoid the operation of section 7(4). The mass concrete strips were an unnecessary addition with no meaningful engineering function, inserted solely to evade the requirement for consent.

2. Load Distribution Argument: The entire reinforced concrete basement box (walls and slab) functioned collectively as the foundation since it distributed loads both vertically and horizontally, including loads that would bear upon adjoining owners’ land.

Both arguments sought to persuade the court that the design should properly be classified as involving special foundations.

The Court’s Analysis

Definition of "Foundation" and "Special Foundations"

The judge emphasised that the statutory definition of "foundation" under section 20 focuses on the structure on which the wall "rests" — not on where the loads ultimately disperse. Simply because part of a structure transmits load does not automatically make it a foundation. Using this statutory lens, the court found that:

The mass concrete strip acted as the foundation because the wall rested upon it.

The reinforced concrete wall, although it transmitted load, was primarily a wall enclosing habitable space and not a foundation in itself.

Artifice or Device

The Court acknowledged that if the designers had included the concrete strip purely to circumvent the Act, the design could have been invalid. However, Mr Pringuer-James testified that he frequently employed this recognised method of construction, and the evidence showed it was not merely a device to avoid the adjoining owners’ veto.

The judge accepted this evidence and noted that, although the method was more expensive and complicated than alternatives, it was not an artifice purely intended to subvert the Act.

Load Distribution Analysis

On the second argument, the judge carefully reviewed expert reports, particularly competing evidence from Mr Simon Pole (for the adjoining owners) and Mr Pringuer-James (for the building owners). The judge concluded that:

Although some minor loads might theoretically be transmitted to the ground beyond the mass concrete strips, these were negligible.

The critical load-bearing occurred through the mass concrete strips alone.

The statutory definition did not require examination of load paths beyond the point where the wall rests.

Thus, the Court held that section 20 did not classify the reinforced concrete box as a foundation or deem it a special foundation.

The Judgment

Judge Edward Bailey ruled in favour of the Fairholmes (the building owners), finding that:

The works did not involve special foundations within the meaning of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.

No consent from the adjoining owners was required under section 7(4).

The mass concrete strip properly constituted the foundation upon which the walls rested.

The reinforced concrete basement box did not amount to a foundation simply by virtue of load distribution.

The judgment reaffirmed that the Court must interpret the statutory definitions strictly, without relying solely on engineering practice.

Key Takeaways - Party Wall Case Law Chaturachinda v Fairholme

The judgment in Party Wall Case Law Chaturachinda v Fairholme provides several important lessons for surveyors, engineers, legal professionals, and property owners involved in party wall disputes:

1. Precise Interpretation of Definitions: The court applied a strict reading of the statutory definitions of "foundation" and "special foundations" under section 20 of the Act, emphasising where the wall "rests" rather than how loads are distributed.

2. Importance of Construction Methodology: If the design employs a mass concrete strip upon which the reinforced walls rest, that strip will usually be treated as the foundation — and unless reinforced, will not qualify as a special foundation.

3. No Artificial Devices Rule: The court acknowledged that if a design were clearly an artifice solely intended to avoid the statutory veto, it could fail. However, in this case, the design was genuine and professionally justifiable.

4. Adjoining Owner Veto Rights are Narrow but Real: Section 7(4) still confers powerful veto rights, but only where true "special foundations" (assemblages of beams or rods) cross onto adjoining land.

5. Expert Evidence is Critical: The contrasting expert evidence proved central. The judge ultimately preferred the designer's evidence, but both sides’ submissions reflected the complexity of foundation disputes under the Act.

6. Significance for Basement Construction: The case is particularly relevant for London’s surge in basement excavations. It clarifies that basement walls designed as part of habitable space are not automatically special foundations.

Conclusion - Party Wall Case Law Chaturachinda v Fairholme

The Party Wall Case Law Chaturachinda v Fairholme is now a leading authority on the interpretation of special foundations under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. It offers valuable guidance for anyone engaged in basement construction projects involving party wall considerations. The statutory language carefully confines the scope of the adjoining owners' potent veto.

Anyone involved in party wall disputes concerning basement construction or special foundations should consider obtaining expert advice early, as technical design decisions can have far-reaching legal implications.

Get in Touch

If you need professional party wall advice or guidance on complex basement projects, our team of expert party wall surveyors is available to assist.

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: