APA Property

APA Property Services Ltd.

Dr. Ahmed v Mr G Moore & Mrs S Moore (2018) Court of Appeal

This is a rather bizarre if not very sad case of where Dr Ahmed having lost her case in 2012 she decided she would try again and made an application to the Court of Appeal to appeal the earlier decisions. Some 5 years after losing and well outside the timetable for the lodging of an appeal, Dr Ahmed went off to the Court of Appeal (2017) to plead her case that there were exceptional grounds for granting an appeal.

It transpired in the documents submitted in support of the appeal that for the past 5 years she had been pursuing complaints against just about everybody she thought she could have a go at in order to try and get the money back that she lost through her inappropriate litigation.

This of course was very upsetting for Mr & Mrs Moore who thought after so many years of inactivity that the matter was now fully behind them, having been paid all of their costs that they laid out, just starting to get back on track and the distressing memories of the litigation brought about by Dr Ahmed were becoming part of a distant memory.

Mr & Mrs Moore contacted Philip Antino immediately and asked whether she could in fact do this. Mr Antino did not believe that she could but referred them to Mr Ashley Bean of Littlestone Cowan Solicitors. Mr Bean wrote a letter to the Court on behalf of the Mr & Mrs Moore (because Mr & Mrs Moore did not have a right of audience). The Court rejected Dr Ahmed’s application stating that there were no extenuating grounds for the unreasonable and excessive delay in making the application to appeal.

Undeterred Dr Ahmed then made another application to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal for refusing her grounds to appeal, and a hearing was listed for the 27th February 2018.

Mr & Mrs Moore having discussed the matter with Mr Antino who seemed quite bemused with this situation believed that Dr Ahmed really would not succeed, Mr & Mrs Moore then instructed Littlestone Cowan and Mr Richard Power of Lamb Chambers who made written submissions which again went before the Court.

Dr Ahmed’s application to appeal was dismissed and Mr & Mrs Moore’s costs ordered against her.

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