APA Property

APA Property Services Ltd.

The High Court of Justice Chancery Division Property, Trust and Probate List claim no. PT-2022-000711

Mr Stephen Pincus v Mr Sohil Singh in the High Court of Justice Chancery Division Property, Trust and Probate List claim no. PT-2022-000711

Mr Pincus had owned his property for several decades.  Mr Singh bought his property in May/June 2022. 

Mr Pincus owns a commercial property in East London, extending around the perimeter of the building is a raised platform providing access to the floor level to the commercial building, which is/was approximately 750mm above ground level.  The platform was used for loading unloading deliveries etc. directly into the commercial unit.

Mr Singh purchased the adjacent property; it was agreed that the title deeds stated that Mr Singh owned the raised platform along one elevation.  However, Mr Pincus had an explicit right under the leasehold interest over the platform which gave him rights over the full width and length of the platform for loading unloading access etc.

Mr Singh started the works on the 6th/7th July Mr Pincus instructed Dr. Antino to attend and to advise.  A meeting was had with Mr Singh, he was advised not to do any more work that interfered with the platform and that he should reinstate those parts that he had already partially demolished.  Mr Singh agreed, this was followed up that day by a letter to Mr Singh.

The next day Mr Singh carried on demolishing the platform.  He refused to stop and Mr Pincus instructed Mr Shaun Murphy of Edwards Duthie Shamash to make an application for an injunction in the High Court of Justice Chancery Division.

Mr Singh’s defence was to claim that Dr. Antino had told him that it was ok to carry on demolishing it was not a problem.  This was misleading and simply wrong Dr. Antino had given no such agreement and in fact all the correspondence indicated the complete opposite to Mr Singh’s position.

Mr Pincus had a long term tenant, the tenant was concerned that he now had difficulties in loading/unloading deliveries to the premises. Mr Pincus had to protect his tenants rights and indeed his own rights to ensure that he was not in any breach of the lease.

The matter was heard on the 20th September 2022 and an injunction was granted.  The Order also required Mr Singh to reinstate the platform and to pay costs.

All of this could have been avoided if Mr Singh had stopped demolishing the platform and reinstate it.

Mr Singh is now facing a combined bill circa £60,000 - £70,000 with legal costs and costs for reinstating the building to its original condition.

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.

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

The High Court of Justice Chancery Division Property, Trust and Probate List claim no. PT-2022-000711

Mr Stephen Pincus v Mr Sohil Singh in the High Court of Justice Chancery Division Property, Trust and Probate List claim no. PT-2022-000711Mr Pincus had owned his property for several decades.  Mr Singh bought his property in ...

Continue Reading

Goodmans Autos Ltd v Maverstone Properties Ltd (1) and Byoot Develop Ltd (2) (2021) in the County Court of Central London

The Defendants (Mavertstone & Byoot) had commenced building works in breach of the Party Wall Act, Goodman’s suffered interference, nuisance, and damage to their property and instructed Philip to represent them.  The Defendants refused to stop w ...

Continue Reading

Dr Antino advises on Dilapidations saved his clients £58,633.18

Every now and again, well in fact more often than not it now seems, a landlord will attempt to obtain financial gain by using the dilapidations protocol when they have suffered no loss. ...

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