RAHEEL SHAH v KEN POWER

RAHEEL SHAH v KEN POWER

Surveyors appointed under the Party Wall etc Act 1996 do not have jurisdiction to make an award where the building owner has not served notice under the Act and has not invoked its provisions. The dispute resolution mechanism cannot be unilaterally imposed by an adjoining owner after works have been completed without notice. The Act operates prospectively and requires invocation by the building owner.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Raheel Shah; Defendant/appellant: Ken Power; Defendant/appellant: Lee Kyson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Party Wall Etc Act 1996, Jurisdiction of Surveyors, Notice Requirements, Dispute Resolution, Common Law Vs Statutory Rights
Property Law Civil Procedure Party Wall Etc Act 1996 Jurisdiction of Surveyors Notice Requirements Dispute Resolution Common Law Vs Statutory Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raheel Shah

Claimant/respondent

Ken Power

Defendant/appellant

Lee Kyson

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether surveyors appointed under the Party Wall etc Act 1996 have jurisdiction to make an award where no notice was served under the Act and the building owner did not invoke the Act
  2. 2 Whether the dispute resolution mechanism under section 10 of the Act can be unilaterally invoked by an adjoining owner after works have been completed without notice

Ratio Decidendi

Surveyors appointed under the Party Wall etc Act 1996 do not have jurisdiction to make an award where the building owner has not served notice under the Act and has not invoked its provisions. The dispute resolution mechanism cannot be unilaterally imposed by an adjoining owner after works have been completed without notice. The Act operates prospectively and requires invocation by the building owner.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The order of HH Judge Parfitt declaring the Award null and void is upheld.