APA Property

APA Property Services Ltd.

Southwell & Southwell v Burrows [2021] H20CL102

The appeal of a Party Wall Award.

Dr. Philip Antino was the Southwells’ appointed surveyor. Mr. Mike Harry was the building owner (burrows) appointed surveyor.

Dr. Antino had reasonably added a stamp and signature to every drawing that he had considered and accepted were relevant to the award.

Dr. Antino had concerns about Mr. Harry’s objections to including the signed and stamped drawings.

Whilst Mr harry had accepted the majority of the challenges raised by Dr. Antino in respect of the award, there were still some areas of dispute. However, the Southwells’ were content with the award and instructed Dr. Antino to sign the award.

Mr.Following an agreement on the Award. Ms. Burrows surveyor surreptitiously added two additional plans not seen/approved by Dr. Antino or the Adjoining Owners. The Adjoining Owners raised their concerns, but the award was not withdrawn and the two drawings were not removed. The Award was appealed requesting the Award was adjusted and the two plans removed. Burrows appointed Mr. Stuart Frame, https://www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

The adjoining owners represented themselves.

The Building owners conceded and agreed the two drawings should be removed from the award. A consent order was agreed and costs were paid by Burrows.


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 , 2023 and 2024 .

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

RICS Surveyors abuse or do not understand dilapidations

The RICS promotes themselves as an organization that “everything we do is designed to effect positive change in the built environment”.  Given this statement it is not unreasonable to expect their members to understand the very subjects that they ...

Continue Reading

Why fight a party wall claim for damages? Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on appeal from the County Court at Central London CA-2023-000624 and CA-2023-000626. 

Building Owners liability for damagesThe moral of the story isWhere there is a liability to pay ...

Continue Reading

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

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