APA Property

APA Property Services Ltd.

Philip Antino discusses Reeves v Young Young & Antino (2017)

Factual background: It was common ground that the building and adjoining owners had not appealed the first award which selected Mr Antino (as recorded within the recitals) as the third surveyor. It will come as no surprise to those familiar with the law that the defendants are going to appealHHJ Baileys decision.

This application was a Part 8 claim for a declaration of invalidity of both the parent award and the third surveyors award, which flowed from the third surveyors’ s.17 complaint in the magistrates court. The Third surveyors award had rejected the building owners (Reeves) request for access under s.8(1) for non-notifiable works. The claimants accepted the third surveyors determination that there were no rights of access under s.8(1) was correct. To avoid payment of the third surveyors costs, they challenged his selection. The building owner relied on two unsigned letters (not posted to the owners) purportedly between the appointed surveyor’s Mr Gold and Mr Westway both of Vincent brown. The letters suggested that they had in in the first instance selected Mr Alistair Redler as the third surveyor. There was no documentary evidence to support Mr Redler having been informed of his selection, or indeed having accepted it. In fairness to Mr Redler he may not even be aware of this case. The claimants counsel (Stuart Frame) surprisingly chose not to call any witnesses to support the contention that Mr Redler was the selected third surveyor or to provide any other documentation to support the claimants position.

Stuart frame argued that the surveyors’ could not deselect the purported first third surveyor under s.10(2), irrespective of the fact that the parent award recorded Mr Antino as the third surveyor was not appealed. Stuart frame argued that the purported letters were sufficient to render the parent award and subsequent third surveyors award invalid. The defendants accept the s.10(2) prohibitive restrictions save that estoppel applied when they the owners failed to appeal the parent award.

HHJ Bailey ruled that the selection of Mr Antino was invalid preferring to rely on the two unsigned letters purporting that they had initially selected Mr Redler. HHJ Bailey rejected an email that confirmed the two surveyors had changed their mind prior to service of the award and had selected Mr Antino as the third surveyor, because he was also the third surveyor in relation to the party wall matters on the opposite side of the building owners (Reeves) property. HHJ Bailey held that the purported change in selection was contrary to s.10(2) and thatthe two surveyors could not de-select Mr Redler’s purported selection. Surprisingly this decision contradicts HHJ Bailey decision in the Mills v Sells and Savage cases (also subject to appeal) where he held that a rescission of a building owners appointment was not contrary to s10(2).

Mr Richard Power’s (Counsel for the defendants) submitted that Reeves was now estopped from claiming that the parent award was invalid, given that Reeves had relied on the award to execute the notifiable works under s.6(1).

To assist those unfamiliar with the legal doctrine of estoppel:

estoppel. a bar or impediment (obstruction) which precludes a person from asserting a fact or a right, or prevents one from denying a fact. Such a hindrance is due to a person's actions, conduct, statements, admissions, failure to act, or judgment against the person in an identical legal case.

estoppel is a collective name given to a group of legal doctrines in common law legal systems whereby a person is prevented from making assertions that are contradictory to his or her prior position on certain matters before the court - the person is said to be "estopped".

HHJ Bailey rejected the established principals estoppel arguments.

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