Gunaratnam Kirypakaran v Mr Mohomed Ibrahim, Mrs Tazmeen Ibrahim, Mr Ahmed Esse, Crown Builders Contractors, Mr Tim Cook, Mr David Randall (2026) EWHC 1429 (TSS) - Croydon Road

Gunaratnam Kirypakaran v Mr Mohomed Ibrahim, Mrs Tazmeen Ibrahim, Mr Ahmed Esse, Crown Builders Contractors, Mr Tim Cook, Mr David Randall (2026) EWHC 1429 (TSS) - Croydon Road

 

Following the decision in the Gunaratnam Kirupakaran v Mr Ibrahim, Mrs Ibrahim, Mr Essa, Crown Builders, Tim Cook & David Randall in the High Court, Case Ref: HT2025-000277 I was contacted by the Claimant who was the adjoining owner of a mixed commercial residential property located on the Croydon Road.

 

Adjacent to that property was formerly a public house which had been purchased by a Housing Association for redevelopment into residential accommodation.

 

It was an extensive development and quite correctly Mr Cook was appointed by the Housing Association (BOS) who served notices.

 

The Claimant appointed Mr Randall as his surveyor (AOS) to deal with the party wall matters.

 

A schedule of condition was recorded by the BOS but not checked or counter signed by the AOS.  Then building works which included excavating beneath the party wall without any Party Wall Award in place took place.

 

The inevitable happened, significant structural cracking deflection and then the collapse of not only the former public house but the adjoining owner’s property and the adjoining property to the adjoining property.

 

The local authority was involved and issued a Dangerous Structures Notice.

 

All of these works without an Award in place.

 

One would have expected the AOS (Mr Randall of  David Randall Chartered Surveyors) being all over this on behalf of his appointing owner.  What followed was a catastrophic failure of the duty of care and the responsibilities under the statutory legislation of both the BOS and AOS to resolve and/or assist the owners in this matter.

 

The Claimant who has limited English notified his building insurers of the problems and received very little assistance or guidance in respect of his position and legal rights.

 

One does not have to be a leading KC, barrister, solicitor or even a surveyor to recognise that the Claimant had an undeniably solid case the question is who is liable?

 

There was video footage of the excavation works being executed, very little means of support to the party wall and/or the public house and the collapse of the buildings was inevitable.  The AO had done nothing wrong but was left high and dry.

 

However, faced with total loss of his building he commenced legal proceedings in the High Court TCC Division with a potential claim in excess of £700,000.

 

He lost, your astonishment matches mine.  When I asked him who his legal team was he advised me that he had not instructed any solicitors or barristers because he did not have any money but had issued the proceedings using AI!!!

 

AI produced all the paperwork but got it wrong, it included every single person that had been named in various documents hence the number of defendants in the above action.

 

The matter went to Court, clearly some of these people were not directly responsible for the collapse of the building but some were but the pleadings failed to show a causal link was not established hence the case was correctly thrown out.

 

The AO was then given a further opportunity to amend and set out the case against whichever party was ultimately responsible, but failed to explain that causation link to the Court and ultimately the decision was handed down on the 11.06.26.

 

What is of considerable concern is that with all due respect to Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE she had a litigant in person who had limited English, required a translator but chose to include a strike out clause.  A strike out clause meant that the Claimant could not bring any more actions against those parties that were responsible.

 

Accordingly, as one can imagine all of the defendants breathed a sigh of relief thinking they had got away with.  In some cases some of them had no liability although there are some serious questions to be asked over their conduct or lack of conduct in these matters.  TheAO was faced with then a Costs Order against him not far off six figures, the AO contacted myself.

 

Having heard this tail of woe it became abundantly clear that something had gone horribly wrong and even though the AO had been naïve, had a lacking of understanding of the legal procedures in England, he should have the opportunity to challenge the Judgment.

 

Not necessarily on the fact that he had included some parties which had no liability but on the fact that a strike out clause had been incorporated and that is a very harsh and draconian decision to make in a Judgment especially against a litigant in person with limited English.

 

I set about looking at the case and the correspondence which had been going on for over 2 years.

 

I put all of the documents into a bundle and gave my opinion on how the matter should have proceeded through the Party Wall Act with services provided by both surveyors and then resolved under the Party Wall Act.  This damage related to works subject to a notice although without an Award in place.

 

However, quite astonishingly Mr Cook and Mr Randall had after the collapse of the buildings served an Award.  That Award is invalid because it sought to regularise the excavation works which had already been carried out and there is no provision within the Act for surveyors to retrospectively award the works.  They should have made a determination on the causation most certainly because the works were subject to an Award and that Award had not been served.

 

To compound matters further Mr Cook and Mr Randall then issued a second Award and again the most notable thing about these two Awards is that they do not make any reference to the collapse of the buildings, no reference to drawings, they just sought to regularise building works which had been undertaken unlawfully by the building owner and their contractors.

 

In fact after commencement of the legal proceedings both AOS and BOS deemed themselves incapable of acting because they obviously took umbrage to the fact that they had been named in the proceedings.

 

Were they responsible for the actual causation of the damage, No.  But was their lack of party wall procedure a contributory factor? who knows?  That is something that may have to be determined at a later date in a separate piece of litigation.

 

To his credit Mr Randall did advise the AO that he had rights under s.12(1) to request security of expenses.

 

That was indeed agreed at £30,000 (much too low when works involve basements) was secured again before the commencement of any building works and placed in the hands of Mr Alex Frame, the third surveyor and who operates an escrow account for security.

 

Notwithstanding the aforementioned situation when Mr Cook and Mr Randall deemed themselves incapable of acting they both signed a document authorising Mr Frame to release the security of expenses.

 

Was that correct?

 

Was that professional?

 

Was that in the spirit of the Party Wall Act?

 

The AOS and BOS knew that there had been a total collapse of the AO’s building.  Did they have the right to release the security of expenses in such circumstances even though they were no longer going to be involved but knowing that party wall surveyors would have to be involved?

 

Again, the AO was left vulnerable and exposed and I have to reiterate issue of the fact that the AO had limited English, zero understanding of the British legal system (that is evident) and/or indeed the Party Wall Act.

 

But it does not end there.  The BO having received the Judgment and thinking they can simply walk away from their responsibilities then appointed Mr Stephen Campbell.  Mr Campbell then wrote to the AO various correspondence which I believe was questionable in integrity and legality.  One example, Mr Campbell writes, “I would expect you to give evidence under oath”.

 

Mr Cambell does not have any jurisdiction to require anybody to give evidence, let alone evidence under oath.  That is ONLY for the Courts.

 

The AO and again remembering that he has limited understanding of the English language really could not understand what was going on and was clearly shell shocked from the decision handed down against him.

 

After all the claimant had done nothing wrong!!!!

 

Mr Campbell served a 10 day notice and then proceeded to appoint Mr Alex Frame (yes the man who was the Third Surveyor in the first set of party wall matters and the escrow account holder) as the AO’s replacement surveyor.

 

Is that allowable?  Is that correct?  Is it questionable?

 

Faced with all of this evidence and there is about 500 pages of various documents, emails, I advised my client to take advice from leading counsel.

 

I put all the documents into a bundle and set out my opinion on what had gone wrong with the administration of the Party Wall Act, the way in which the works were started without an Award etc.

 

My client instructed Dr Tim Sampson of Lamb Chambers.  Following a conference which did not take too long in order for Dr Sampson to advise that the AO had very good grounds for challenging the Judgment specifically on the strike out clause.  An application was made to the Court of Appeal seeking permission to appeal.

 

I am pleased to say that on the matter going before the Right Hon Lord Justice Arnold Ref ca-2026-001750 on the 06.10.26 permission was granted to appeal the Award.

 

The matter now will be going forward and hopefully we can get the right Judgment that allows the AO to be reimbursed for his loss.