Court of Appeal Ken Power & Lee Kyson v Raheel Shah 2023

I have now received the approved judgement. I remain amazed that these two surveyors Lee Kyson https://www.lkbc.co.uk/ and Ken Power http://www.partywallmatters1996.co.uk continued to fight this case.

HHJ Parfitt did not agree when he upheld Mr Shah's Part 8 claim agreeing that the absence of a notice under s.3 of the Act , the Act has not been engaged and that the Adjoining owner cannot trigger the Act by instructing a surveyor to serve retrospective notice on the building owner.

See my previous blog

This issue is so basic what were they thinking off. I am left speechless, why?

The Act does not allow retrospective notice unless agreed between the owners.

No Noitce No Act simples!!!! it really is.

I note they have used Mr Nicholas Isaac KC. I have experience of Mr Isaac who does try to push his luck with arguments that are in my opinion and nonsensical

See a blog on another of Mr Isaac's arguments that piled foundations are not foundations!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway back to the case in point, power & Kyson were having non of this and appealed and on 11.02.22 Eyre J dismissed the Appeal.

Undeterred they tried again.

As noted within the judgement Mr Isaac argued that the dispute resolution process set out in s.10 was widely drawn (come on Mr Isaac not that widely drawn) and permitted the adjoining owners to appoint Mr Kyson and therefore the appointment of Mr Power under s.10(4).

Nonsense and not unsurprisingly Mr Isaac's arguments for rejected for the third time and rightly so by Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Coulson and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing

Judges Comments and Opinions regarding Dr. Antino

Miss Recorder Rowlands H01CL719 in Moore v Ahmed 2023

I accept Mr Antino's (as he then was) evidence that Mr Tugby had sought instructions form Dr Ahmed as to the lien of the boundary.
Dr Antino - Managing Director
The party wall world is relatively small, the stage of this world contains a number of well-known players, Mr Antino is one of these well-known players and so are his owners instructing solicitor Mr Ashley Bean of Thirsk Winton
HHJ Bailey - [2016]
The Claimants have a very experienced legal team comprising Mr David Mayall of lambchambers & Mr Ashley Bean of thirsK winton and their surveyro Dr. Philip Antino. The evidence in particular of the Defendant’s plans for both the Accessway and the plans and how it impacted upon the Claimants business was important information that The Defendants ahd not provided when requested.
HHJ Freedland QC - [2021]
"Mr Antino is a palpable witness, Mr Antino's explanation of the unique attributes of the "Thompson Plan" greatly assisted the Court to understand the location and extent of the claimants’ boundaries” (Best & Best v Perkins & Dennis in the County Court at Luton).
HHJ Hildyard - [2015]
The appeal was a preliminary hearing of two points in respect of an Award served by Mr Antino and a surveyor appointed by Mr Antino under s.10(4) on behalf of the Building Owners the Appellants. HHJ Luba QC sitting in the Central London County Court held "In my judgment the Award is valid, the use of s.10(4) was the appropriate procedure given the Building Owners refusal to appoint a surveyor. A dispute had arisen that satisfied s.10 procedures, The Award is an impressive piece of work". Schmid v Hulls and Athananasou).
HHJ Luba QC - [2016]
“Mr Antino is an acknowledged expert in the field of party wall issues.”
HHJ Murfitt QC 2013 - [2015]
“I have known Philip for many years as a surveyor, he is a very good surveyor, as this book shows he is a very good author and this book can only advance his reputation”
HHJ Philip Bartle QC - [2012]
“In the appeal of an ex-parte Award served by Mr Antino on behalf of the respondents, in my judgment the respondent is correct. Mr Antino’s contention that it is not a matter for negotiation directly between one surveyor and the other surveyor’s client. Since I have determined that the ex-parte Award was valid the court is still able to determine the Award and under the statutory powers to modify the Award if appropriate. I am grateful to Mr Antino suggesting that I now determine the Award issue “I accept that Mr Antino’s hourly rate is not in my judgment unreasonable. It follows that the fee set out in the ex-parte Award had been properly justified and I therefore award Mr Antino’s fees”. (Bansal v Myers Romford County Court).
HHJ Platt - [2007]

Court of Appeal Ken Power & Lee Kyson v Raheel Shah 2023

Judges Comments and Opinions regarding Dr. Antino

Latest Posts

Outstanding Expert Services to Construction and Engineering Law 2024

Is Adjudication Appropriate for Resolving a Dilapidation Dispute?

Court of Appeal Ken Power & Lee Kyson v Raheel Shah 2023

Need our Services?