APA Property

APA Property Services Ltd.

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.

His son Stuart Frame is junior counsel at Tanfield Chambers www.tanfieldchambers.co.ukwho specializes in party wall matters, and Alex Frame, therefore, has unrestricted and FREE access to legal advice.  Alex Frame’s Award was appealed. The Respondents had instructed Mr Nick Isaac QC (also of Tanfield Chambers).

Mr S Kelly of Staple Inn Chambers www.stapleinn.co.ukacted for the Appellants and interestingly Mr Stuart Frame was previously junior counsel at Staple Inn before moving to Tanfield Chambers as junior counsel.

Alex Frame’s Award dealt with damage caused to the Respondents property specifically drainage.  Mr Frame awarded £16,850.72for works needed to repair the damaged sewer pipe.

The matter came before HHJ Johns QC and in a surprisingly brief but detailed judgment extending to 7 pages, the appeal was rejected on some but not all grounds.  The one surprising aspect of this particular appeal, related to the compensation awarded £16,850.72 by Mr Alex Frame.  It was agreed by both the Appellants and Respondents that the sum awarded by Mr Frame should be reduced to £8,890.28.

If both parties accepted that the correct damages were £8,890.28 it is difficult to understand how Mr Alex Frame could have reached the figure of £16,850.72!!

Mr Alex Frame did not inspect the properties and therefore it is correct to assume that he made his decision based on submissions from the party’s representatives (BOS and AOS), so how did he determine £16,850.72!!

Mr Alex Frame clearly made a mistake and given the harsh treatment handed down by Mr Stuart Frame against Mr Lee Kyson www.lkbc.co.uk/fpwsfor a “near mistake” it is reasonable to expect Mr Alex Frame to face the same disciplinary action from the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors.

After all, the rules should apply to all members including the President.  The President cannot/should not avoid disciplinary action because of the old boy network!  Indeed, if Boris can be held accountable it would follow that Mr Alex Frame should also be accountable.

If the Faculty is to demonstrate any degree of credibility, Mr Alex Frame should report himself and face the consequences.

 Appeal Process

Another interesting aspect of the appeal is the absence of Mr Alex Framebeing named as a Respondent.  It is of course correct that the surveyors whose Award is being appealed should be named as Respondent and exposed to legal costs.

Indeed, Mr Frame’s son, Stuart Frame (Evans v Patterson, Harris, Newton and McAllister 2021 in the Country Court of Central London case number G20CL068) made sure that the surveyors whose Award was being appealed (Newton & McAllister) were named as Respondents, and indeed as a consequence were exposed to substantial legal costs.

So, the question I ask is why was Mr Alex Frame not included as a Respondent and thereby exposed to legal costs?  One for Mr Isaac QC to explain.

Indeed, in a recent appeal where Mr Stuart Frame is representing a Mr & Mrs Capper against a Third Surveyors Award, he also excluded the Third Surveyor!!!, which is inconsistent with his approach in the Evans case.  Why? Let’s think about that for a few minutes.

 http://apaproperty.com/blog/2021/11/20/capper-m-1-and-capper-r-2-v-macey-b-1-amp-antino-p-2-2021-the-county-court-at-central-london-h20cl135

Interestingly in Capper v Macey Stuart Frame wrongly included me, thus, exposing his clients Mr & Mrs Capper to legal costs for the discontinuance of myself from the appeal.  It was the Third Surveyors Award that was being appealed and he should have been included but was not?

So, why is there this inconsistency in the approach adopted by various barristers.  It does make it rather bizarre and frustrating to understand why each appeal is treated/approached differently (or is it perhaps that some surveyors are targeted for different treatment).

Perhaps it will remain one of life’s mysteries that is generally associated with the inconsistent administration of the Party Wall Act and the legal procedures.

A very relevant point for debate.

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