APA Property

APA Property Services Ltd.

Another successful injunction Peter J Edmond v Nicholas Bartholomew Denham & Helen Julie Seekings-Denham (2021) H00PE335

Peter J Edmond v Nicholas Bartholomew Denham & Helen Julie Seekings-Denham (2021) H00PE335

Peter J Edmond v Nicholas Bartholomew Denham & Helen Julie Seekings-Denham (2021) H00PE335

I have said it hundreds of times DON’T IGNORE THE PARTY WALL ACT

On 22.04.2021 Philip Antino www.apaproperty.comwas instructed by the Claimant to provide advice on the Defendant’s building works. having identified the 9-points below, all of which were clear breaches of the Party Wall Act, and common law. The second defendant gave an undertaking to stop all works, they did not.

Disingenuously, later that day the defendants instructed their contractors to continue working late in to the evening until 9 pm on the 22.04.21 and to start very early on the 23.04.21 in an attempt to complete notifiable works and avoid an injunction. They failed to complete the works and given the breach of undertaking an injunction was applied for at Cambridge County Court.

The Claimants instructed Mr. Michael Callaghan (“MC”) callaghanm@gepp.co.uk of www.geppsolicitors.co.ukand Mr. Daniel Attridge of Trinity Chambers https://www.trinitychambers.com/team/daniel-attridge/

The defendants had appointed Mr. Adam Cakebread (“BOS”) of www.partywallconsulting.co.ukto prepare and serve various notices. The Claimant did not consent but provided various documents relating to concerns regarding the alleged boundary position and classification of the adjoining owner’s garage and wall.

The defendants did not progress the party wall proceedings to their natural and proper conclusion, which should have been to instruct their BOS to serve a s.10(4) notice. instead, they simply pressed ahead with the following; -

 (1). Excavating foundations on the Claimants land (trespass);

(2). Building a wall across the line of junction (trespass);

(3). Erected scaffolding on the Claimants land (trespass);

(4). Used the Claimants garage roof as a platform to work from (trespass);

(5). Cutaway parts of the Claimants garage wall (trespass);

(6). Projected their facia, soffit, and barge board across the line of junction (trespass);

(7). Projected their guttering across the line of junction (trespass);

(8). Cutaway the Claimants facia and felt to his garage roof (trespass); and

(9). Caused cracking within the garage and utility room.

The defendants instructed Stuart Frame (“SF”) of www.tanfieldchambers.co.ukwho immediately wrote to MC claiming an injunction was incorrect and the matter should be resolved through ADR ( a common argument often advanced by those at Tanfield when their clients are in the wrong)

MC responded s follows: -

 Whilst in certain cases we might well proceed to ADR at this point, as you will be well aware, this is not a type of case that requires pre-action correspondence or ADR and we will take immediate action to protect our client’s property to ensure that no further damage is done. Accordingly, we will proceed as previously indicated. As a consequence of the behavior outlined above, we have no faith that your clients will halt the building works whilst negotiations take place. Indeed, Ben Stronach (a director of the building firm on-site) has told our client that he will not stop the building works until an injunction is in place.

Mr. Frame did not succeed in having the matter to proceed through ADR and prevent the matter from proceeding through the Courts. The matter went before Recorder Anne McAllister on the 07.05.2021 via zoom. At the hearing, the appropriate legal undertakings were given by Mr. Denham.

Grounds for a stay were agreed so that matters can proceed to the proper conclusion under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.

Mr. Frame again wanted the matter to proceed thereafter through ADR. Mr. Michael Callaghan and Mr. Daniel Attridge, rejected this proposal and it was agreed that the matter should proceed through the party wall procedures.

This is the latest clearest evidence that if an owner does not comply with or as in this case commences the Party wall procedures and then ignores them will be subject to the appropriate legal remedies.  

The issue of costs was raised, Mr. Frame claimed the court cannot address costs at this  time. no cost at this time. Mr. Attridge countered this by saying that Mr. Frame was looking at this through ‘the wrong end of the telescope.’ Mr. Attridge rejected Mr. Frames’ position. Mr. Attridge provided a powerful counter.

Recorder Anne McAllister rejected Mr. Frame’s position.

Costs were awarded against the Defendants of £7000 plus their own costs of £5000

A very expensive exercise.

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 and 2022 .

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]

During 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

Court of Appeal Ken Power & Lee Kyson v Raheel Shah 2023

I have now received the approved judgement. I remain amazed that these two surveyors Lee Kyson https://www.lkbc.co.uk/ and Ken Power http://www.partywallmatters1996.co.uk continued to fight this case. ...

Continue Reading

Sir Neil Thorne v Liberty Ilford Holdings Ltd and Ringo Ilford Ltd (2023) in the Central County Court at London K00CL542

Dr Antino was Sir Neil Thornes' Party Wall Surveyor, Given the continued trespass and damage, Dr Antino recommended Sir Neil to take legal advice to protect his property. Another successful application for an Injunction against develope ...

Continue Reading


An RICS surveyor prepared and served a schedule of dilapidation alleging £214,410 inclusive of the VAT as the amount allegedly necessary to repair and/or reinstate an office of 2,350 sq ft. Dr. Philip Antino was appointed by the Tenant. ...

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