Party Wall Case Law Freetown v Assethold

Party Wall Case Law Freetown v Assethold Ltd (2012) Court of Appeal decision clarifies a key procedural question under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996: when is a party wall award deemed to have been served—on posting, or on actual receipt?

This ruling is of great significance to surveyors, property owners, and legal practitioners, especially given the strict 14-day limit for appeals under section 10(17) of the Act. The case addresses the interface between the Party Wall Act, the Interpretation Act 1978, and historic case law under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927.

Background

The appellant, Freetown Ltd, owned 12 Westport Street, London E1. The respondent, Assethold Ltd, was the long leaseholder of 4 Westport Street—an adjoining property.

A dispute arose under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 concerning Freetown’s proposed development works. Both parties appointed surveyors, who in turn selected a third surveyor, who made an award on 22 July 2011.

The issue was procedural but critical: the award was posted on either 22 or 23 July and received by Freetown on 25 July. Freetown lodged its appeal on 8 August 2011.

Whether this appeal was in time depended on whether the 14-day clock began on posting or receipt of the award.

If on posting, the deadline expired on 4 or 5 August. If on receipt, it expired on Sunday, 7 August—extending the deadline to Monday, 8 August under Mucelli v Government of Albania (2009).

The Legal Framework

Section 10(17) of the Party Wall Act

“Either of the parties to the dispute may, within the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the award made under this section is served on him, appeal to the county court against the award…”

Section 15 of the Party Wall Act

This section sets out how parties may serve documents under the Act:

(a) by personal delivery,

(b) by post,

Importantly, it does not refer to registered or recorded post.

Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978

“Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post... service is deemed to be effected... when it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.”

But this is subject to a crucial caveat: “unless the contrary intention appears.”

Arguments and Lower Court Decisions

Both Recorder Hochhauser QC in the county court and Slade J in the High Court held that service occurred upon posting.

They applied the reasoning in Webber v Railtrack (2004), which interpreted section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 as evidencing a "contrary intention" to the Interpretation Act—thus making posting the relevant event for service.

Appellant's Case (Freetown)

Counsel argued that:

Section 15 contains <em>no language</em> evidencing a contrary intention to Section 7.

Interpreting “service by post” as complete on posting would unfairly curtail appeal rights—particularly since the award authorises works that would otherwise be trespass.

Only the surveyors, not the parties, know the posting date—making it unreasonable to use it as the trigger point.

Deeming service on posting risks unfairness and potential breach of Article 6 ECHR—right to a fair hearing.

Respondent's Case (Assethold)

Counsel maintained:

Like section 23 of the 1927 Act, section 15 lists permissive, primary methods of service.

As a primary method, service by post should be deemed complete on posting—providing certainty and protecting the server.

Section 7 should be excluded by necessary implication.

The same logic applied in Webber applies here—even if section 15 does not reference registered post.

The Court of Appeal’s Analysis

The leading judgment was given by Lord Justice Rix, with Patten LJ and the Chancellor concurring.

The Court made a crucial distinction:

“The critical question... is whether ‘the contrary intention appears’ in section 15 so as to exclude section 7.”

Key Findings - Party Wall Case Law Freetown v Assethold

1. Section 7 Applies by Default
Unless a statute clearly indicates otherwise, section 7 of the Interpretation Act applies.

2. No Contrary Intention in Section 15
Unlike section 23 of the LTA 1927 (which specifies registered post), section 15 of the Party Wall Act does not evidence any contrary intention.

3. Language Supports Receipt-Based Service
“Served on a person” implies receipt, not mere dispatch. The use of personal delivery and delivery to company secretaries further reinforces that the Act bases service on receipt, not on sending.

4. Statutory Purpose
Section 15 enables reasonable service methods. It does not override fundamental fairness or truncate time limits based on mailing dates.

5. Webber v Railtrack Not Binding Here

The wording of section 15 differs from section 23 LTA 1927.

The rationale in Webber hinged on registered post, which offers formal proof of dispatch.

Party Wall awards are often sent by ordinary post.

6. Deemed Service on Receipt Is More Just

Applying section 7 ensures:

Clear rules on addressing and posting

Deemed receipt based on postal delivery times

Burden on the addressee to prove non-receipt

Retains fairness and reduces procedural traps

The Result

The Court of Appeal allowed Freetown’s appeal, holding that the 14-day limit under section 10(17) runs from the date of receipt, not the date of posting.

Freetown’s appeal, received and lodged on 8 August, was therefore in time.

Key Takeaways - Party Wall Case Law Freetown v Assethold

1. Service of Awards Requires Receipt
Section 10(17) of the Party Wall Act sets the 14-day appeal window to begin when the recipient receives the award, not when it is posted.

2. Section 7 of the Interpretation Act Applies
There is no “contrary intention” in section 15 of the Party Wall Act to exclude the Interpretation Act’s deemed receipt rule.

3. Webber v Railtrack Is Not Controlling
Webber’s logic is confined to statutes that expressly refer to registered post, such as section 23 of the LTA 1927.

4. Fairness and Human Rights Are Reinforced
The ruling supports the right to a fair hearing by avoiding the risk of parties losing appeal rights due to unknown or delayed postal timelines.

5. Surveyors Must Exercise Care
Third surveyors should post awards promptly and use tracking or provide evidence to avoid any ambiguity over service.

Final Thoughts - Party Wall Case Law Freetown v Assethold

Freetown v Assethold clarifies an essential procedural safeguard under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. It protects parties from unfair disadvantage caused by postal delays or uncertainty around service dates.

For surveyors, property professionals, and legal practitioners, the judgment offers renewed clarity and reinforces the importance of evidencing receipt—not merely posting—when enforcing procedural time limits.

If you're navigating a Party Wall dispute and need support understanding your rights or meeting appeal deadlines, our expert team at Anstey Horne can assist. From notice service to award interpretation and dispute resolution, we ensure compliance and clarity every step of the way.

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: