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 Stuart Frame junior counsel of Tanfield Chambers www.tanfieldchambers.co.ukto argue that the injunction was wrong, excessive and should be lifted.

The return date hearing on the 18.02.22 at Edmonton County Court, Ms Antonia Halker of Lamb Chambers www.lambchambers.co.ukwas appointed by the Claimants (Conaghan).

The circumstances in relation to this injunction flows very neatly on from my blog on the Shah v Kyson and Power case insofar as when a building owner breaches the Party Wall Act and/or creates a trespass the only remedy available to the adjoining owner is to seek injunctive relief. This legal remedy has been successfully adopted on numerous occasions by my clients, as listed below.

1. Dodosh v Bibizadeh & Bibizadeh [2014] County Court at Central London.

2. Franco Rusciani v Kamal Kumar and Rajesh Sharma (2012) Chelmsford County Court.

3. Hart v Spencer (2017) County Court at Romford.

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

5. MacLachlan v Patel (2019) - County Court at Central London HHJ Luba

6. Mills & Mills v Savage & Savage [2016] County Court at Central London

7. Takhar V Mohammed (2014) County Court at Central London (inunction rejected)

8. Zaher & Zaher v Patel (2019) - County Court at Central London HHJ Luba

9. Conaghan & Conaghan v Abdul (2022) County Court at Edmonton

Stuart Frame’s grounds for contesting the injunction were based on frighteningly similar terms to his arguments in the 2021 Edmonds v Denham & Seekings Denham case in the Peterborough Court [insert link here] which resulted in an injunction.

Mr Abdul the building owner had admitted in his witness statement that he had committed a trespass, and that he had breached the Party Wall Act. There is also a video recording where Mr Abdul rather denies his identity to Dr. Antino when questioned and then says “we will not stop unless you get an injunction.”

Mr Abdul and Mr Frame could hardly be surprised that the adjoining owners exercised their legal right to stop the works by obtaining an ex-parte injunction.

Returning to Mr Frame’s grounds these are in bullet form as follows: -

1) The trespass has been overegged.

2) The trespass is de minimus.

3) The breaches of the Act are de minimus.

4) The remedy is damages not injunctive relief.

5) Mr. Abdul can build his own structure alongside the Claimants wall and they cannot do anything about it.

Therefore, on that basis Stuart Frame asked for the injunction to be lifted.

Ms Antonia Halker responded: -

(1) A trespass is a trespass there is no defence in law and you cannot simply say “well we have trespassed onto your land and here is some money”. A trespass has to be removed.

(2) The Defendant had refused to stop works and engage with the Party Wall Act, and that was the only legitimate legal remedy available to the Claimants. The Defendant has made assertions that there were previous structures enclosed on the Claimants wall but had not given disclosure of any evidence to support that position

(3) Historical Google photographs show that there was no structure up to June 2019so there are questions that need to be fully pleaded.

Deputy District Judge rejected Mr Frames position and held that the injunction should stay in place in terms as set out at the ex-parte injunction hearing.

Mr Stuart Frame argued that would effectively stop the Defendant doing other building works such as putting electric cables into the roof joists and that therefore that should be excluded.

Mr Frame argued that the Court is not the correct remedy and that the parties should go to ADR, perhaps mediation and that would be the correct approach. Ms Halker countered and submitted that at this stage there is simply too many unknown facts, lack of disclosure etc. for anything to be taken to ADR.

The Judge agreed with Ms Halker. The injunction remains in place, costs are reserved.

If only the building owner had complied with the Act the costs/delays would have been avoided.

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
In any industry there are always organisations that stand out from their peers and set the standards that others in their field have to aspire to achieve. First established back in 2001, APA Property Services is an organisation that certainly meets this criteria leading the way when it comes to providing construction, surveying and engineering consultancy services. They have made quite a name for themselves over the years establishing a well deserved reputation as one of the leaders in their field and if the last few years are any barometer of what the future holds then there are many successful chapters yet to be written in the APA Property Services story.
E2 Media - E2 Media
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]
Why the Federation of Forensic and Expert Witnesses Has Selected APA Property Services Ltd for the Industry Leadership in Building Consultancy & Expert Witness Services Award 2026–2027
Setting the Benchmark for Excellence in Construction Consultancy and Expert Evidence
Within the increasingly complex world of construction disputes, building failures and property litigation, solicitors require far more than technical opinion. They require expert witnesses capable of interpreting highly technical construction issues, presenting independent evidence that withstands judicial scrutiny, and assisting the Court in reaching fair, balanced and technically accurate conclusions.
It is for these reasons that the Federation of Forensic and Expert Witnesses (FFEW) has chosen APA Property Services Ltd, under the leadership of Dr Philip Antino, as the recipient of the Industry Leadership in Building Consultancy & Expert Witness Services Award 2026–2027.

The award reflects far more than individual achievement. It recognises an organisation that has consistently demonstrated exceptional professional standards, technical excellence, innovation, legal understanding and an unwavering commitment to independent expert evidence over many years.
Founded in 2001, APA Property Services has developed into one of the United Kingdom's most respected multidisciplinary construction consultancies, providing specialist building consultancy, expert witness services, dispute resolution, building surveying and engineering advice across both the public and private sectors. From its headquarters in Chelmsford, the practice advises clients throughout England and Wales, combining practical commercial experience with academic excellence and extensive courtroom expertise.
A Reputation Built on Knowledge, Independence and Professional Integrity

One of the principal reasons behind the Federation's decision is the exceptional depth of expertise demonstrated by Dr Philip Antino throughout his distinguished career.
Unlike many construction consultants, Dr Antino combines more than four decades of practical industry experience with outstanding academic credentials. He is recognised as the first person in the world to have been awarded a PhD specifically examining the interpretation of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 and its implications for below-ground construction, research that has contributed significantly to professional understanding within this specialist area. His academic achievements are complemented by degrees in Building Surveying, Construction Management and Research, providing a rare combination of practical experience and scholarly authority.

However, qualifications alone do not explain APA Property Services' success.
The Federation places considerable importance upon professional integrity, independence and the ability to assist the Courts objectively. APA has built its reputation on providing impartial, CPR Part 35-compliant expert reports that serve the interests of justice rather than the interests of the instructing party. This independence lies at the very heart of expert witness practice and remains one of the defining characteristics of the firm's work.

Trusted Across the Construction and Legal Professions
APA Property Services today offers one of the broadest portfolios of specialist construction consultancy services available within the expert witness sector.
The practice regularly advises upon:
● Building defects and structural failures
● Professional negligence claims
● Housing disrepair
● Party Wall disputes
● Boundary disputes
● Landlord and tenant matters
● Building contract disputes
● Fire safety and construction issues
● Forensic building investigations
● Alternative Dispute Resolution
● Arbitration and adjudication
● Building surveying and project consultancy

This breadth of expertise enables solicitors to instruct one highly experienced consultancy capable of addressing numerous interconnected construction issues within a single litigation matter, creating consistency, efficiency and significant cost savings for clients.
Courtroom Experience That Inspires Confidence
Perhaps the strongest endorsement of APA Property Services comes not from marketing literature but from the judiciary itself.

Over many years, Dr Antino's evidence has been considered by County Courts, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, Crown Courts, Magistrates' Courts and specialist Tribunals. His expert opinions have been relied upon in complex disputes involving boundary interpretation, Party Wall legislation, professional negligence and technical construction matters.
Published judicial comments available on APA's website illustrate the level of confidence placed in his work. Judges have referred to him as an acknowledged expert in Party Wall matters, praised the quality of his awards and recognised the assistance his technical evidence has provided in helping the Court understand complicated construction issues. These observations reinforce what many solicitors already recognise—that technically robust, independent expert evidence can significantly assist litigation by clarifying the real issues in dispute.
Courtroom Experience That Inspires Confidence
Why Solicitors Continue to Instruct APA Property Services
For legal practitioners, selecting an expert witness is ultimately about confidence.
Confidence that the expert possesses the appropriate qualifications.
Confidence that the report will comply fully with Civil Procedure Rules.
Confidence that technical conclusions are evidence-based.
Confidence that the expert can withstand cross-examination.
Confidence that complex engineering or surveying issues can be explained clearly to judges, barristers and clients.

APA Property Services has established an enviable reputation for delivering precisely this level of confidence.
The practice accepts instructions from claimant and defendant solicitors alike, together with appointments as Single Joint Expert where appropriate. Importantly, the firm's philosophy is not simply to prepare reports for litigation but, wherever possible, to assist parties in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions. Early independent expert advice often enables disputes to be resolved without the significant financial and emotional cost of lengthy court proceedings, providing tangible benefits for both clients and the justice system.
A Consultancy That Continues to Raise Standards

The Federation does not present this award solely in recognition of past achievements.
Instead, the Industry Leadership Award recognises organisations that continue to evolve, innovate and influence professional standards across their sector.
APA Property Services has consistently expanded its capabilities while maintaining exceptionally high standards of technical quality, independence and client service. The practice has embraced multidisciplinary consultancy, strengthened its expert witness offering and continued investing in professional development while preserving the personal service expected by solicitors and commercial clients alike.
These qualities distinguish genuinely outstanding consultancies from those that merely provide technical reports.

A Well-Deserved Recognition

The Federation has previously recognised Dr Philip Antino and APA Property Services through several prestigious awards, including the Lifetime Achievement Award and Outstanding Expert Services to Construction & Engineering Law. Rather than resting on these accomplishments, the practice has continued to enhance its reputation through sustained professional excellence, investment in research, expansion of specialist services and an unwavering commitment to independent expert evidence.
For the Federation of Forensic and Expert Witnesses, the decision to honour APA Property Services once again reflects careful observation of the firm's continued progression and influence within both the construction and legal professions.

In today's increasingly demanding litigation environment, solicitors require experts who combine exceptional technical knowledge with independence, clarity, credibility and courtroom experience.
APA Property Services has demonstrated these qualities consistently for more than two decades.

It is therefore entirely fitting that the Federation recognises Dr Philip Antino and APA Property Services Ltd with the Industry Leadership in Building Consultancy & Expert Witness Services Award 2026–2027, acknowledging an organisation that continues to set the benchmark for excellence in construction consultancy, expert witness practice and professional leadership throughout the United Kin
Setting the Benchmark for Excellence in Construction Consultancy and Expert Evidence - Federation of Forensic and Expert Witnesses

Injunctions for breach of party wall act 1996: the only legal option

Judges Comments and Opinions regarding Dr. Antino

Latest Posts

Mohammed & Lahrie v Takhar, Takhar & Takhar (2026) in the County Court at Mayors & City of London Case No: G20CL122

HOMELESS SOLDIER PROJECT

Even experienced Surveyors are confused about what constitutes a special foundation.

Need our Services?