Party Wall Case Law Masters v 6 Bolton Road

In Party Wall Case Law Masters v 6 Bolton Road, the court allowed an appeal against a party wall award because the surveyors failed to require structural calculations and a method statement for the reconstruction of a stone balcony spanning two historic terraced houses.

The judgment clarifies that awards must adequately safeguard the adjoining owner, be sufficiently comprehensive on design and construction method, and not rely on informal understandings or the unstated competence of a chosen tradesperson. In short: if works raise structural concerns, put the engineering in the award.

Background - Party Wall Case Law Masters v 6 Bolton Road

Nos. 5 and 6 Bolton Road are Victorian stuccoed townhouses in a Hampstead terrace. Each has a first-floor balcony with ornate railings; the two balconies physically connect, and occupants can step out via tall sash windows.

On 31 July 2014, a section of cornice and leadwork from No. 6 fell, damaging not only the façade and balcony at No. 6 but also the connected balcony and front elevation at No. 5. The building owner (6 Bolton Road Ltd) retained Ken McHale of KMASS (a chartered structural engineer) to design and manage repair works, which included replacing sections of the York stone balcony using stainless-steel resin dowels and renewing the waterproof membrane.

Scaffolding went up at No. 6 on 19 November 2014. On 8 December 2014 Mr McHale wrote to the adjoining owners at No. 5 (the Masters family), introducing himself and the contractor (AMCAS). Remarkably, he invited the Masters to fund repairs beneath their own balcony - despite the damage originating at No. 6 - an approach they declined. Mrs Shamin Masters, concerned about balcony safety, appointed David Bowden (Urban Building Surveyors) on 29 January 2015 as party wall surveyor; Bowden wrote on 3 February requiring notifiable works to stop and requesting service of proper notices under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. The building owner initially denied the Act applied and continued with works.

Through February–March 2015, Bowden repeatedly pressed for compliance and for temporary support measures; McHale engaged in correspondence and offered assurances but pushed on. When contractors cut away a portion of the remaining balcony section connected to No. 5 on 25 March 2015, the threat of legal action escalated. Mrs Masters insisted that a party wall award should govern both the scope and the safety of the works.

The building owner eventually appointed McHale as its surveyor on 21 April 2015; the surveyors selected Mr Schofield as third surveyor. McHale sent a draft award on 1 May. Bowden heavily rewrote it and (crucially) asked for more detail: either an engineer’s supporting statement/specification or advice from an engineer with stone-repair expertise. Mrs Masters pressed (again) for a specialist structural engineer, structural calculations, and a clear method for temporary propping. McHale resisted, noting the stonemason’s expertise and providing only a sketch.

On 31 July 2015, Bowden told Mrs Masters he would not require a further engineer, characterising the stonemason (Mr Chris Gladwell) as “effectively a specialist engineer” for this conservation work. On 24–27 August 2015, the surveyors issued and served a preliminary award for balcony repairs without structural calculations or a detailed method statement. Mrs Masters immediately instructed Aleck Associates (Paul Cullen) to report; his rapid report questioned the structural safety of the proposed balcony configuration (though later experts agreed his analysis was mistaken). With no time to lose, Mrs Masters appealed the award on 10 September 2015 under s.10(17) (14 day window).

The adjoining owners then sought a pragmatic pause: on 13 October 2015 Mrs Masters proposed staying the appeal if the building owner produced (1) an engineer’s report, (2) calculations, (3) method statements for temporary and permanent works, (4) propping specifications, and (5) building control sign-off (McHale later said Building Regulations weren’t engaged for like-for-like repairs). The building owner’s solicitors responded on 17 December 2015 with two sets of calculations (a BS 5628 panel approach and yield-line theory) and suggested the balcony was adequately safe - even citing a high safety factor. However, at trial the experts agreed these calculation methods were inappropriate for this York stone “flat arch” balcony.

The evidence at trial

Witnesses

Mrs Shamin Masters testified credibly and consistently about her safety concerns. The court found her concerns genuine and reasonable, noting she even commissioned a consulting engineer at her own expense when the award omitted calculations.

Mr Massimilio Ferrari (a director of the building owner) left matters to Mr McHale, which the court viewed as reasonable.

Experts

For the adjoining owners, Mr Nicholas John Huband (William J Marshall & Partners), an experienced structural engineer in historic structures, presented impressive evidence. In a joint statement with McHale, the experts agreed the balcony behaved structurally as a flat arch spanning between the bays, with some cantilever/torsional support from being built into the façade brickwork; they also agreed the Aleck report contained errors. Critically, they agreed that, if one had to demonstrate structural adequacy by calculation, a superimposed load of 1.5 kN/m² (a domestic floor loading) would be appropriate. Huband’s view: a new balcony must demonstrate by calculation that it can carry 1.5 kN/m², to reassure the adjoining owner and future third parties (e.g., purchasers, surveyors).

On method, Huband advised the award should include at least a simple method statement (an annotated sketch would suffice) to show support arrangements - especially for inserting the final stone and handling stainless-steel dowels and jointing. He set out three practical details: (1) position the dowels above the rebate so they don’t block grout, (2) provide bleed holes to ensure the joint fully fills, and (3) require non-shrink additive in the cement grout to avoid shrinkage voids. These were not controversial engineering novelties; they were sensible points that a good method statement would capture. Huband accepted a competent stonemason matters, but insisted the award should specify the method so nothing critical is overlooked. He was not asked to run the calculations himself and declined to opine on ultimate safety without them - underscoring why calculations mattered.

Mr Ken McHale wore multiple hats: designer (for a like-for-like repair), contract administrator, party wall surveyor, and expert. He did not disagree with the technical sensibility of Huband’s suggestions; he said they were unnecessary given the stonemason’s expertise. He accepted the December 2015 calculation methods were not appropriate for this balcony. His central stance was: the original balcony stood for 175+ years; this is a like-for-like replacement under a highly capable stonemason; a method statement and formal calculations were not needed.

The legal framework the judge applied

Appeal test: Although s.10(17) allows the county court to rescind or modify an award, the Court of Appeal has held (in Zissis v Lukomski) that Part 52 CPR governs party wall appeals. Therefore, the court will allow an appeal only if the award is “wrong” (CPR 52.21(3)(a)) or unjust due to serious procedural irregularity (not alleged here).

Scope and effect of awards: Under s.10(12), an award may determine the right to execute the works, the time and manner of executing them, and any other matter arising from the dispute - including costs. Awards are conclusive per s.10(16). Critically, s.7(5) requires that works executed “in pursuance of the Act” be carried out in accordance with the agreed or determined plans, sections and particulars, with no deviation unless further agreed or determined. The Act thus expects awards to be sufficiently specific and self-contained (including references to external documents) so that builders can follow them without improvisation.

Purpose of the surveyors’ role: Citing Brightman J in Gyle-Thompson v Wall Street Properties, HHJ Bailey emphasised surveyors act in a quasi-judicial/quasi-arbitral capacity to safeguard the adjoining owner whose rights are being overridden. Shortcuts are undesirable and the Act’s steps should be scrupulously followed.

The issues and the court’s analysis

1) Design adequacy - must the award require structural calculations?

The court framed the question practically: Are the adjoining owners acting reasonably in seeking engineering calculations showing the reconstructed balcony can safely sustain a 1.5 kN/m² load? On the expert evidence, the answer was yes.

HHJ Bailey rejected the building owner’s like-for-like argument for three reasons advanced by the adjoining owners:

This is a new structure. It may mirror the original appearance but it remains a new build in a structurally sensitive position connecting two houses. Safety must be evidenced for this structure, not assumed from historical performance.

Unknown original details. McHale did not see the original balcony in situ, nor did he have detailed records of its construction; the replacement’s equivalence could not be assumed with confidence. Modern design practice expects calculation and documentation.

Audit trail and accountability. The court endorsed Huband’s view that engineers should be responsible for their design, leaving a paper trail that reassures the adjoining owner now and any future purchaser or surveyor later (e.g., during a sale). The absence of calculations could become a value/comfort issue on disposal, even if its precise impact is uncertain.

The cost (~£2,000) for calculations was not disproportionate when set against the potential consequences of failure (“a falling balcony”). The request for calculations was normal good practice and a reasonable condition for safeguarding the adjoining owner. On this design question, the award was wrong for not requiring structural calculations.

2) Construction method - must the award include a method statement (or equivalent)?

HHJ Bailey stressed a core drafting principle: an award should be as complete within itself as reasonably practicable. It may append or reference external documents (plans, sketches, specs, method statements) and may even refer to named contractors or supervisors - but do not rely on informal understandings that are not recorded in the award.

Here, the building owner’s answer to safety concerns was essentially: trust the stonemason (Mr Gladwell). But the award did not mention him (or alternatives) and contained no method statement capturing the crucial details (dowel placement, bleed holes, non-shrink grout, temporary support during the final-stone operation). The judge pointed out obvious risks:

Personnel change: the stonemason may be unavailable; McHale might move on; another site manager might not have read the background correspondence.

s.7(5): once an award is made, works must follow the specified particulars without deviation. If the method isn’t specified, the adjoining owner’s protections are eroded.

It would have been straightforward to meet the adjoining owner’s concerns by (a) requiring a method statement or an annotated sketch that effectively amounts to one, and/or (b) specifying the particular craftsman/contractor (preferably both). Because the award did neither - leaving key safety process steps unstated - it was wrong on the manner of execution.

The outcome

HHJ Bailey held that the award was “wrong” on both (i) design (no calculations) and (ii) construction method (no method statement/recorded controls). He allowed the appeal. Although the transcript ends with allowance of the appeal rather than a redrafted award, the reasoning makes clear what a compliant award needed to do: require structural calculations to 1.5 kN/m² and include a clear method statement (or equivalent specific particulars), rather than rely on unwritten confidence in a tradesperson’s skill.

Download Judgement

Practical implications for party wall surveyors and developers

Comprehensiveness is protection. Draft awards that fully specify design and method, especially where the works affect structural elements spanning or connecting to the adjoining owner’s property. Use appendices and references liberally and precisely. (s.10(12); s.7(5)).

Don’t outsource safety to tacit expertise. A contractor’s brilliance does not replace a method statement. Capture key steps - temporary propping, dowel locations, bonding/grouting procedure, inspection points - inside the award (or its annexes), so the award stands even if personnel change.

Require calculations when reasonable. When works replace or affect structural components in ways that could load or weaken an adjoining element, require calculations aligned to appropriate load models (here, a flat-arch York stone balcony to 1.5 kN/m²). Avoid generic or unsuitable calculation methods.

Remember the Act’s protective purpose. Surveyors are quasi-arbitral and should “scrupulously” follow statutory steps, always mindful that the award overrides common-law rights. When in doubt, build protections in - that is the scheme’s intent.

Be explicit about named persons only if you mean it. If a specific retained expert (e.g., a specialist stonemason) is central to safety, say so in the award, and set rules for substitution (competence, experience, approval). Otherwise, rely on a method statement and quality controls rather than people.

Reference the right statutory hooks. Use s.10(12) to stipulate the manner of executing works and include s.7(5)-compliant drawings/specs/method statements to lock in the process. If risk is material, an adjoining owner may also seek security for expenses under s.12.

Communications discipline. Avoid direct communications that bypass surveyors’ roles. While no bias was found here, private approaches to the other side’s surveyor risk undermining confidence in the quasi-judicial process. Keep the record clean and transparent.

How the court applied the “wrong” test

Because CPR 52 governs party wall appeals, the court would only intervene if the award was “wrong.” That assessment required the judge to ask what an award should achieve. HHJ Bailey emphasised awards should:

resolve the dispute fully within the statutory framework;

be workable and safe in real-world construction;

respect that once made, the works must follow the award without deviation (s.7(5));

include adequate particulars so third parties can implement the works without relying on unwritten assumptions.

Measured against that standard, the absence of calculations and a method statement made this award wrong - not because failure was inevitable, but because the award failed to safeguard the adjoining owner through proper documentation and enforceable particulars.

What this means for future awards

In heritage and stonework repairs (balustrades, balconies, cornices), document the engineering. Even if visually like-for-like, the structural scheme may differ from original, and modern safety expectations require evidence, not assumption.

If an adjoining owner reasonably asks for calculations or methods on a safety-critical element, surveyors should normally incorporate these requests unless disproportionate or unnecessary.

Where a method hinges on specialist craft, either specify the craftsperson in the award or, better, lock-in the method statement, including temporary works, fixings, tolerances, and inspection points.

Avoid unsuitable calculation models. Tailor analysis to the actual behaviour (here, a flat arch in York stone), rather than generic slab or panel approaches. If the analysis model is contestable, explain and justify it in the documentation.

Key Takeaways

Party Wall Case Law Masters v 6 Bolton Road confirms that party wall awards must protect adjoining owners by requiring appropriate structural calculations and a clear method statement when works raise genuine safety issues.

An award should be self-contained (or expressly incorporate external documents) so that, under s.7(5), the contractor can execute without deviation and without relying on off-record assumptions about people or processes.

Like-for-like appearance does not excuse the absence of modern engineering verification, particularly where the original details are unknown and the structure connects two properties.

The reasonable standard load for verification in domestic settings - 1.5 kN/m² - is a sensible benchmark for balcony calculations unless a different design basis is agreed and justified.

Relying on a skilled stonemason is not enough; the award should capture the method, including dowel placement, bleed holes, non-shrink grout, and temporary support arrangements.

On appeal under CPR 52, the court will intervene if an award is “wrong,” even absent procedural irregularity - especially where it fails to record necessary design and method particulars to safeguard the adjoining owner.

Conclusion - Party Wall Case Law Masters v 6 Bolton Road

Masters v 6 Bolton Road is a practical reminder: the best party wall awards read like a buildable specification. They give contractors what they need to execute safely and give adjoining owners the documented reassurance the Act promises. If the work could break a balcony, don’t rely on confidence - require calculations and method in the award.

Get in Touch - Party Wall Case Law Masters v 6 Bolton Road

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: