APA Property

APA Property Services Ltd.

Nick Isaac’s hubris gets the better of him and costs his client circa £200,000

Another two important party wall cases heard where Philip Antino Acted for the Claimants on the 16.03.20 before HHJ Roberts CLCC

Zaher and Oger-Zaher v Patel (2020) CLCC F20CL100 and

MacLachlan v Patel (2020) CLCC F20CL099

The two cases were before HHJ Richard James Lloyd Roberts who is a Circuit Judge, deployed to the South Eastern circuit, based at Central London and Mayors and City of London County Court He was appointed as a Master of the Queens Bench Division in 2009 at the Royal Courts of Justice, London, UK

Back ground

In October 2019 Mr. Patel (defendant) started excavations and piling works to two separate properties within the Lockesfield State (on the Isle of Dogs East London) without serving notice under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.

The works comprised of excavations for a reinforced concrete slab and driven cast-insitu driven piles. The Zaher’s and MacLachlan (“Adjoining Owners”) instructed Philip Antino to provide preliminary advice.

Philip Antino downloaded drawings from the Tower Hamlets planning portal, and noted the extent of the proposed works, and identified notice required under s. 1(5), (3) (2) and s. 2(2), s.6(5) for works under s.6(1) and (2). The drawings also showed an intention to project special foundations on to the Adjoining Owners properties which required written consent under s.7(4) without such would have been unlawful.

Philip Antino emailed Mr Patel requesting an undertaking that he stop all works until party wall matters were completed. The neighbours were advised and instructed Mr. Ashley Bean of Littlestone Cowan Solicitors who also wrote in the same terms requesting an undertaking on both the 19th & 20th October 2019 and having been warned there would be an application for an injunction.

Mr. Patel did not give any undertaking. The two injunctions were obtained on the 21st of October 2019 before HHJ Parfitt.

On the 23rd October 2019 Mr. Patel appointed Mr. Simon Dove MRICS who served s.1(5), (3) (2) and s.2(2), s.6(5) for works under s.6(1) and (2). notices for those works that Philip Antino had identified.

Mr. Dove rather bizarrely stated in his s.1 (6) notice that there was no intention to project special foundations on to the neighbours properties.

On the evidence contained within the engineer’s drawings, it was abundantly clear that there would be a special foundation that projected onto the adjoining owners’ properties. Philip Antino challenged the validity of the notices on several grounds Mr. Dove simply refused to accept he had got everything wrong.

Simon Dove’s excuse was that he had served the notices on a “catch-all basis” and that they were “vague” in order to ensure that they captured everything.

Mr Dove MRICS (NO LESS) appears not to understand the purpose of a notice is to provide accurate information regarding the proposed notifiable works.

Catch-all and Vague simply does not justify poorly written notices.

Mr. Patel instructed solicitors and Mr. Nicholas Isaac QC. Not unsurprisingly Mr. Isaac took exception to the injunctions claiming that they were wrongly obtained because he believed that : -

(i) Driven cast in situ steel-lined piles did not create an excavation and therefore was not notifiable. Because (wait for it) Compressing the soil into the ground to make a void was not the same as digging out the ground and removing it from site therefore not notifiable under section 6 (1);

(ii) The excavations for the reinforced concrete slab were de minimis and therefore not notifiable under the Act.

Not unsurprisingly Philip Antino’s advice to the two sets of claimants remained unchanged and that Mr. Isaac was simply wrong in law and non-sensical.

Mr. David Mayall of lamb Chambers acting for Ms. MacLachlan presented his case to HHJ Roberts.

Mr Salis for the Zaher’s was due to make his submissions after lunch.

When the Judge rose for lunch, Mr. Isaac approached the Zaher’s and settled the claim against Mr. Patel on favorable terms for the Zaher’s. This was a clear indication that Mr. Isaac recognized that his case was a forlorn hope and effectively Mr. Isaac had thrown the towel in.

After lunch Mr. Isaac began his submissions during his attempts to persuade HHJ Roberts in addressing Mr. Isaac made the following candid observations: -

“it’s all very Alice in wonderland Mr. Isaac”

“Your position does not attract water let alone hold it”

“Your clutching at straws Mr. Isaac”

It was quite clear that Mr. Isaac’s rather bizarre and unrealistic interpretation of the Act had not persuaded HHJ Roberts.

Before the hearing, he had asked the Court for a finding of law that his interpretation on driven piles was correct. HHJ Roberts stated, “I am not going to make that ruling because this hearing was a return date hearing for the injunction and not a trial and the ruling would require a full trial”.

HHJ Roberts rose and advise that he would be returning within about 30 – 45 minutes with his judgment.

As soon as HHJ Roberts left the Court Mr. Isaacwas out of the court, faster than a greyhound out of the starting block, taking his client outside then came in and made an offer to settle which was rejected. It was clear Mr. Isaac did not want a Judgment going against him.

Nonetheless, another offer was made by Mr. Isaac, was also rejected. Then another one rejected, then Ms. MacLachlan settled on very favorable terms (£47,000) regrettably as the matter had settled there was no requirement for His Honour Judge Roberts to hand down a judgment.

However, he thanked the parties for making his job easier, he also complimented both Counsel David Mayall of lamb Chambers and the Claimants expert Philip Antino for the claimants (Zaher and MacLachlan).

This was an amazing result for both David Mayall, Ashley Bean, and Philip Antino and their clients, it was also a fantastic result for the party wall community who can draw comfort that driven cast in situ steel-lined piles are notifiable and more importantly excavations of a reinforced concrete slab are not de minimis.

Rather bizarrely two days after the hearing Mr. Patel then wrote to Philip Antino and congratulated him and then tried to encourage him to act for him on his party wall matters Philip Antino declined.

Then a week later Mr. Dove wrote an email criticizing HHJ Roberts and Nick isaac’s interpretation of what is a structure, more to follow on Mr. Dove.

We at APA Property are proud to have been supporting the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers for the past 10 years, leading to us becoming a recorded friend of the regiment .

Our continued support has been recognised as we have been recorded as friends of the regiment in 2021 , 2022 and 2023.

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]

During 2024 and 2023 we supported the Regiment of Support Services by assisting British World War II veterans to visit the annual Normandy Memorial Service in France .

Latest Posts

Ongoing Party wall misuse/abuse

This follows my LAST  blog having thought things could not get more bizarre this gentleman outshines himself.The BOS having taken a unilateral decision that the Act does not apply bec ...

Continue Reading

Ongoing Misuse/abuse of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996

It is astonishing that some 28 years after the introduction of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 (PWA) that there continues to be a clear lack of understanding of how the PWA applies and works for both the building owner and adjoining owner.  Even more ...

Continue Reading

Outstanding Expert Services to Construction and Engineering Law 2024

Dr Antino of APA Property Services Ltd (www.apaproperty.com) has received further recognition for “Outstanding Expert Services to Construction and Engineering Law 2024” by the Federation of ...

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