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.
HHJ Parfitt did not agree when he upheld Mr Shah's Part 8 claim agreeing that the absence of a notice under s.3 of the Act , the Act has not been engaged and that the Adjoining owner cannot trigger the Act by instructing a surveyor to serve retrospective notice on the building owner.
See my previous blog
This issue is so basic what were they thinking off. I am left speechless, why?
The Act does not allow retrospective notice unless agreed between the owners.
No Noitce No Act simples!!!! it really is.
I note they have used Mr Nicholas Isaac KC. I have experience of Mr Isaac who does try to push his luck with arguments that are in my opinion and nonsensical
See a blog on another of Mr Isaac's arguments that piled foundations are not foundations!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyway back to the case in point, power & Kyson were having non of this and appealed and on 11.02.22 Eyre J dismissed the Appeal.
Undeterred they tried again.
As noted within the judgement Mr Isaac argued that the dispute resolution process set out in s.10 was widely drawn (come on Mr Isaac not that widely drawn) and permitted the adjoining owners to appoint Mr Kyson and therefore the appointment of Mr Power under s.10(4).
Nonsense and not unsurprisingly Mr Isaac's arguments for rejected for the third time and rightly so by Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Coulson and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing