APA Property

APA Property Services Ltd.

Antino v Stirling Properties Ltd (2016) Barking Magistrate’s Court

Issues: The 1996 Act – s.6(1) notices – s.12(1) security – s.10(13) costs – 7 No s.10(10) Awards – no appeal – s.17 enforcement as civil debt.

Decision: The Award was not appealed therefore building loses right to appeal or amend award s.17 complaint land in Barking Magistrates Court. The building owner contacted Mr Antino’s legal advisers 24 hours before the hearing date and advised that they would not be attending Court and accepted liability for the fees and offered no defence. They conceded they would also be liable to the costs on an indemnity basis incurred by Mr Antino in enforcing the complaint. The court awarded the full amount of Mr Antinos Fees of £3,478 and £8,458.

The Facts: This case has similar issues as held in the Farrs Development Judicial Review. The building owner having obtained the awards enabling them to proceed with the works then neglected to pay the fees which had been awarded by agreement between the two surveyors. The building owners did not appeal the awards and therefore the awards on expiry of the s.10(17) 14 day period were valid.

The building owners were asked for payment and advised that if payment was not forthcoming, a s.17 complaint would be filed. No response was received and on the 4th October 2016 a complaint was laid at Barking Magistrates Court with a hearing for the 11th November 2016.

The Decision: The building owner contacted Mr Antino’s legal team 24 hours before the hearing by email advising that they would not be attending Court and would not be offering any defence. They gave an undertaking that they would pay Mr Antino’s fees in full by 11th December 2016 and made a payment of £1500 on account. The building owners also accepted liability for the legal costs which included, disbursements, interest incurred by the claimant in seeking the enforcement. The magistrates heard evidence from Mr Antino and submissions from his Counsel and upheld the complaint. The costs sought by Mr Antino were £3,478 for dealing with the Party Wall Awards (7 no.) in addition to which the building owner now accepted liability for £8,458 in legal costs all to be paid within 21 days of the date of the hearing. The complaint was heard by the Bench, evidence was given under oath by Mr Antino and the undertakings offered by the building owners were put before the Bench and the Bench awarded the terms of the undertaking.

Judges Comments and Opinions regarding Dr. Antino

  • 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]

Latest Posts

Alex Frame’s Third Surveyor Award of compensation reduced by 50% in May & Crown Ltd v Shipton & Shipton [H20CL085]

Alex Frame (President of the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors) www.fpws.org.uk was selected as a Third Surveyor, awards excessive damages.H ...

Continue Reading

Injunctions for breach of party wall act 1996: the only legal option

Conaghan & Conaghan v Abdul (2022) Edmonton County Court “return date hearing”This follows the ex-parte injunction of the 11.02.22 Mr Abdul (the Defendant) instructed Mr St ...

Continue Reading

Shah v Ken Power & Lee Kyson [2022] EWHC 209 (QB) Mr Justice Eyre

Appeal in the High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division in relation to an ex temporejudgment of HHJ Parfitt in a party wall matter.  The Appellants were represented by Mr Nick Isaac QC and Mr. Carl Fain on a direct access basis both of Tanfi ...

Continue Reading

Need our Services?

Click the button below to be brought to our inquiry form and we will contact you as soon as possible to discuss. Alternatively, call us on 01245 492495.

GET IN TOUCH