Party Wall Case Law Knight v Goulandris

Party Wall Case Law Knight v Goulandris (2018) - this Court of Appeal jusdgement provides important clarification on service requirements under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996—particularly the method and timing of serving a third surveyor’s award.

The case arose from a dispute between neighbours in London’s Belgravia and addressed both substantive issues of damage and the procedural rules governing appeals under the Act.

Background of the Dispute

Mr Nicholas Knight, the appellant, undertook extensive works at his home, 19 Chester Square, including the construction of a larger basement that involved work on a party wall shared with his neighbour, Mr Basil Constantine Goulandris, who resided at 18 Chester Square. The works spanned approximately two years and, following their completion, both parties appointed their own surveyors to assess damage allegedly caused by the construction.

Mr Goulandris’s surveyor, Nicholas Fenton, produced a report asserting that restoration required extensive cleaning and redecoration, necessitating temporary relocation of the Goulandris family. He assessed compensation under the Party Wall Act at £821,210.49, including £640,000 for alternative accommodation.

Conversely, Mr Knight’s surveyor, Denis Holley, disputed both the causation and extent of the damage, attributing much of the deterioration to ordinary wear and tear.

As permitted under section 10(1)(b) of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, the parties referred the matter to a third surveyor, Mr Alistair Redler, after failing to reach an agreement.

The Award and the Appeal

On 2 September 2015, Mr Redler issued his award, concluding that most of the damage cited was either pre-existing (e.g. hairline cracks) or minor. He also determined that the works for which Mr Knight was responsible did not require the Goulandris family to vacate their home. He awarded compensation in the amount of £55,001.61—substantially lower than Fenton’s assessment.

Mr Goulandris appealed under section 10(17) of the Act. However, a key procedural issue arose. The court had to determine whether he submitted his appeal within the 14-day period permitted under the Act. This hinged on when the third surveyor validly served the award.

The Procedural Issue: What Constitutes "Service"?

Mr Redler emailed the award to both parties’ surveyors at 08:45 on 2 September. Later that day, Mr Fenton forwarded the award to Mr Goulandris at 23:19. It was undisputed that Mr Goulandris opened and read the email on 3 September. The third surveyor sent a hard copy by post to Mr Fenton but did not send one directly to Mr Goulandris.

Section 10(17) allows 14 days from the date of service of the award to lodge an appeal. Section 15 of the Act governs the service of notices and documents and had been amended by the 2016 Electronic Communications Order, which authorised electronic service only if specific conditions were met—including prior consent by the recipient.

The County Court's View

Judge Bailey at the Central London County Court determined that service on Mr Fenton did not equate to service on Mr Goulandris. He considered whether the email from Mr Fenton to Mr Goulandris constituted valid service under the Act. Initially, he expressed the view that Section 15 might not be exhaustive, meaning service by other methods could be valid. However, he ultimately held that email was not valid service at the time, noting the amendment made by the 2016 Order implicitly confirmed that the original Act did not permit electronic service.

He pointed to the consistent understanding within the party wall surveyor community, the government's own interpretation, and the fact that Parliament had felt the need to legislate to allow email service as supporting evidence.

The Court of Appeal’s Analysis

The Court of Appeal overturned the County Court’s decision. Lord Justice Patten delivered the lead judgment and held that Section 15 does not provide an exhaustive list of permitted methods of service.

Key Points of the Judgment - Party Wall Case Law Knight v Goulandris

Interpretation of “May” in Section 15: The Court stressed that the term “may” in s.15 indicates that the listed methods are permissive—not exclusive. This interpretation aligns with established case law, including Stylo Shoes v Prices Tailors [1960] 1 Ch 396 and Hastie and Jenkerson v McMahon [1990] 1 WLR 1575.

Common Law Principles: At common law, service is valid if the recipient receives the document. Since Mr Goulandris received and read the emailed award, the court held that service had occurred—even though the method was not one listed in section 15.

Electronic Communications Order 2016: While Parliament introduced the 2016 Order to clarify and extend the means of service, it did not change the fact that actual receipt of a document is sufficient for service in law—unless the Act expressly excludes alternative methods.

Professional Practice Not Determinative: The fact that most party wall professionals assumed that electronic service was invalid before 2016 could not override the correct legal interpretation of the statute.

Service on Surveyor Not Enough: The Court confirmed that service on a party’s surveyor does not constitute service on the party themselves unless expressly authorised.

Statutory Construction Prevails: Interpretation should be based on the statute’s language and legal principles—not industry conventions or assumptions.

Conclusion of the Court

The Court of Appeal held that the email from Mr Fenton to Mr Goulandris, which included the award in PDF form, constituted effective service for the purposes of s.10(17). As such, the 14-day appeal period began on 3 September when Mr Goulandris opened the email. Because he lodged the appeal on 17 September, he missed the deadline. The court therefore dismissed the appeal.

Key Takeaways from Party Wall Case Law Knight v Goulandris

Electronic service is valid at common law if the document is actually received by the intended recipient, even if such a method is not expressly listed in the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.

Section 15 of the Act is permissive, not exhaustive. The prescribed methods provide safe harbour but do not exclude other effective means of service.

Consent is required for electronic service post-2016 under the amended Act—but actual receipt before 2016 may still constitute valid service under common law.

Surveyors must exercise care in ensuring that awards are properly served on the parties themselves—not merely their surveyors—to ensure appeal timelines are correctly calculated.

Assumptions or conventions within the professional community are not legally determinative and cannot override statutory interpretation by the courts.

Final Thoughts on Party Wall Case Law Knight v Goulandris

Knight v Goulandris stands as a pivotal case clarifying procedural requirements under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, particularly in relation to how and when awards are served.

For party wall surveyors and property professionals, it offers authoritative guidance on the implications of using electronic communication and stresses the importance of ensuring proper and timely service of awards to avoid unintended procedural pitfalls.

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 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: