APA Property

APA Property Services Ltd.

Ash v Trimnell-Ritchard 19 November 2020

Andrew Scofield of www.https://schofieldsurveyors.co.uk/entered into an award with Stuart Birrell of www.murraybirrell.co.uk was the third surveyor both FRICS members have justifiably come under considerable scrutiny and scathing criticism ( quite right too)about their Award in Ash v Trimnell-Richard 19 November 2020 that was wholly and substantially overturned on appeal,

HHJ Parfitt noted within the Award that in fact, the Award did not get off to a good start at all

In the introduction at (iv) the surveyors decided it would be a good idea to have a paragraph that starts:

“As a record but not forming part of this determination, the surveyors agree that the adjoining owner has undertaken works to the party wall in connection with which notice in accordance with the provisions of the Act was required and was not served.”

11. That was wholly irrelevant, it was contentious, it should not have been in that award. It did nothing apart from indicate to any reasonable person reading the award that the surveyors were not carrying out their function, or appeared not to be carrying out their functions in a way that would fit their quasi-judicial roles. It is unfortunate that that was there, albeit it can be safely ignored, but it begs the question as to why the surveyors thought it was necessary or appropriate to put such a prejudicial comment in an award. That is not the least problem that this award has.

continuign at para 16

“And obtain their approval of a description of the proposed works and an itemized estimate of cost.”

16. So far from the award determining the right to execute the work which is the subject of the award, and the time and manner of executing that work, what this award purports to do is to authorise investigations on the part of the Respondent, the building owner, and then envisages the preparation of a schedule of works following those investigations, a description of the proposed works, together with an itemised estimate of cost and then the surveyors potentially authorising those works. It is obvious that an award cannot authorise works for which there is no specification or any determination that works might be required.

One of the other problems with the award is that for the Appellant reading it there is a clear but unevidenced and undetermined assumption that he is responsible for the leak. It reads in a way that would give a reasonable reader in the Appellant’s position the impression that it was biased against him and because of that I think that this ground is fairly made out. It looks like it is determining his responsibility for a nuisance. The surveyors have no power to do that.

31. Putting those two bits together, first, they do not go through the gateway and, secondly, that actually it does look like it is trying to determine he is liable for nuisance or, at least, it is going to investigate and we are pretty sure that you are going to be liable but we just give ourselves some backs doors so that potentially if you comply with our self-imposed requirement to give us notice in five days then we might reconsider the position, is grossly unfair. In purporting to assume common law liability without establishing jurisdiction under the Act, the Award is bad and this ground succeeds.

read the whole transcript but clearly these two surveyors got the whole process wrong acted ultra viries and therefore fundamentally did not act in accordance with the Act.


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