Notable Cases

Claimant v Respondent (2021) Arbitration identities withheld for confidentiality

Dr Antino acted for the Claimants and commenced an Arbitration matter, the Respondents instructed eminent Counsel who sought to challenge the right to Arbitrate and indeed the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator.  Dr Antino’s arguments on jurisdiction were upheld, and all points submitted to the Arbitrator were upheld.  This was a dispute regarding an appointing owner and their surveyor in a party wall matter.  The party wall surveyor had made a Part 36 Offer on Dr Antino’s instructions of £4,650 against fees of approximately £9,600.  The total cost at the end of the Arbitration was circa £42,000 awarded against the Respondents.  They should have accepted the Part 36 Offer and avoided these costs.

Goodmans Autos Ltd v Maverstone Properties Ltd and Byoot Develop Ltd (2021)

Party Wall, Boundary dispute, damage and nuisance:

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 works and comply with the Party Wall Act and/or to abate any nuisance, interference caused by their works.  An injunction was obtained prohibiting the ongoing works until party wall matters had been complied with and furthermore certain undertakings had to be given including making good to damaged road surfaces that interfered with the Claimants commercial activities.

JSA Properties (UK) Ltd v Gary Harvey Waldman (2021) – G20CL109

Philip provided advice on a party wall award and established that there were no notifiable works. Accordingly, Philip advised JSA to appeal the award and to make a part 36 offer of £300 to each of the surveyors (nuisance money) in full and final settlement. An agreement was reached and the award set aside on the order of HHJ Parfitt.

Mark Bennet v Stephen Rowlins & Jaqueline Rowlins (2021) G00BN668

This case related to an application under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992. The Defendants (Rowlins) refused access. Dr Antino’s advice was to issue proceedings in the County Court at Brighton. The defendants were represented by Mr. Stuart Frame. Access was a statutory right for preservation and repair and Mr. Stuart Frame advised his clients to sign a consent order allowing the request for access.

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

Injunction for breach of Party Wall Act. Philip Antino was instructed by the Claimant to provide advice on the Defendants building works following service of the PWA notices. The notices had not been consented to and the s.10 procedures ignored by the defendants. Their works created trespass and damage caused to the claimant’s land. Despite an undertaking being given to Dr Antino by the defendants not to do any further works. Later that day the defendants instructed their contractors to continue working late in to the evening in an attempt to complete notifiable works and avoid an injunction. They failed and given the breach of verbal undertaking an injunction was applied for and obtained before Recorder Anne McAllister and cost awarded against the defendants

R2 Properties v Day-2-Day Stationery Dilapidations Claim

R2 (the landlord) instructed Mr. A Diamant of Land Surveyors Ltd to pursue a dilapidation claim against Day-2-Day. They instructed Philip and on consideration of the lease, Philip rejected the entirety of the landlords offer to settle arguing that (i) there was no diminution in the value following the tenants’ improvements undertaken an agreement with the landlord and suggested a drop hands settlement. The landlord’s solicitors Capstick Dale responded “We agree with your commercially pragmatic approach that there should be a return of keys forthwith and a drop hands settlement”.

RLUKREF Nominees (UK) One Ltd & RLUKREF Nominees (UK) Two Ltd v OPM Furniture Ltd (2021)

RLUKREF served a schedule of dilapidations (partly costed) of £68,600.  OPM instructed Philip Antino to defend the claim. Philip rejected the schedule of dilapidations claim, arguing that there was no diminution in the landlord’s reversionary interest (value of his building) following the tenants’ improvements undertaken with the landlord’s agreement. Philip suggested a drop hands settlement which the landlords’ surveyor rejected. Philip commenced Adjudication proceedings within 48 hours of an Adjudicator being appointed, the landlord withdrew their claim accepted there was no diminution and accepted ‘a drop hands settlement’ Philip had successfully removed OPM liability of £150,000.

Southwell & Southwell v Burrows [2021] H20CL102

Dr Antino was the Southwell’s’ appointed surveyor following an agreement on the Award. Ms Burrows surveyor surreptitiously added two plans not previously seen or agreed by Dr Antino. The Award was appealed requesting the two plans removed. Burrows conceded and a consent order was agreed and costs paid to the Southwell’s.

V J Kulkarni v Rajinder Atkar (2021)

Dr Antino was the Claimants (V J Kulkarni) expert the case related to a boundary dispute. HHJ Hellman Found in favour of the Claimant and awarded costs on an indemnity basis. The Defendant being required to remove the fence that Blocked access and to relocate it on their land. The Defendants RICS surveyor refused to be cross examined on his evidence and production of a flawed plan.

Delva Patman Redler LLP v D Franses (2020) G09YJI98

Mr. Franses appointed Ms. Delva Patman of Delva Patman Redler (“DPR”) as his party wall surveyor, the building owner served notice on a freehold but refused to serve notice on Mr. Franses. DPR did not advise Mr. Franses of his rights to obtain an injunction and did very little to ensure that the building owner served notice on Mr. Franses. The building owner’s works, caused damage DPR then advised Mr. Franses that because party wall works had been concluded they could do nothing further and then issued an invoice for and subsequent claim for £1,276.50 plus interest of 60.15p plus court costs. Mr. Franses instructed Philip Antino to give advice, the advice was not to pay the money as the level of service provided did not reach the test “the reasonably ordinarily competent party wall surveyor”.  DPR was advised of the concerns and that there was going to be a defence filed relating to the failure to provide the appropriate standards and level of service. DPR then offered a substantive discount on the fees to compromise the case. On Philip Antino’s advice, Mr. Franses rejected that reduced offer and on reflection DPR subsequently and very sensibly withdrew their claim against Mr. Franses.

Insurer v insured (2020) identity withheld due to non-disclosure agreement

Mr Antino was the SJE in a party wall matter where substantial structural damage was caused to an adjoining owner (“AO”) property. The Agreed Surveyor (“AS”) had not advised the AO of their rights under section 12(1) to request security before commencement of the works. The building owner went into liquidation and defaulted on paying for the damage. The AO pursued the surveyor for the loss. On receipt of Mr Antino’s report the PI insurers settled in full without accepting liability.

Zaher & Zaher v Patel (2020) and MacLachlan v Patel (2020)

This was the return date hearing for the two earlier injunctions. Mr. Patel had instructed Mr. Nicholas Isaac QC, he argued that the injunction was wrongly obtained because the piled foundations were not notifiable works under section 6.  Philips’s opinion was that they were notifiable. HHJ Roberts was not persuaded by Mr. Isaac’s submissions. Before judgement was handed down Mr. Isaac abandoned his case and persuaded his clients to settle both cases on favourable terms for the claimants.

Mr. Patel paid Mr. Antino a significant compliment when inviting him to be his party wall surveyor. Mr. thanked him but declined the invitation.

Fisher (Properties) Ltd – v – Mohamed Riaz Uddin (2019)

Philip Antino was instructed by the claimants assist with a section 146 notice of forfeiture of a lease.  Mr. Uddin had continually breached the terms of the lease, and had undertaken substantive structural alterations and illegally converting to a home in multiple occupation without planning or building regulation approval or the landlords’ approval.  Mr. Uddin was convicted London Fire Brigade – v – Riaz Uddin (2018) Crown Court (see below) The Court ordered the forfeiture of the lease with the additional costs for non-payment of rent and legal costs against Mr. Uddin.

Professional negligence: - Insured v Insurer (2019) mediation identities withheld due to non-disclosure agreement

The claim had been ongoing for six years without a satisfactory resolution Mr. was appointed on behalf of the insured to provide advice and in respect of a subsidence claim. Mr. argued that the loss adjusters appointed by the insurer mishandled the investigation, assessment, monitoring, and calculation of reinstatement works. The insurer offered £17,000 in full and final settlement, although the estimates obtained, by the loss adjuster indicated circa £80,000 which included underpinning. It was accepted at the mediation that the building appeared to be stable and that superstructure repairs were justified. On the condition that if the movement returned then a new claim for underpinning could be submitted. A settlement was reached where the insurer agreed to pay £30,000 for the superstructure repairs plus legal and professional costs incurred by the insured of £31,000. Right print off tone from Lynch spastic

Mr Brian Macey v Mr. Mark van Blommestein MRICS of Pearson Gore Chartered Surveyors

Mr van Blommestein was Mr. Macey’s appointed surveyor and awarded works that created a trespass and unlawfully authorised scaffolding to be put on Mr. Macey’s land.  Mr. Macey, instructed Mr. Antino who advised Mr. Macey to apply a declaration of invalidity of the Award. Prior to the matter coming before the Courts an Addendum Award was served.  However, there had been no legal determination on liability for costs incurred by Mr. Macey, Mr. Antino then requested Mr. van Blommestein’s CHP, a complaint was registered with the RICS, who let down Mr. Macey doing nothing. Following an unacceptable response to the CHP, an application to CEDR was made to have the matter resolved by arbitration. Mr. Van Blommestein insurers, made an offer to settle Mr. Macey’s legal costs on an indemnity basis, including Mr. Antino’s fees

Nessfield Ltd v Oi Tan Chan (2019) E20CL182

This is the second piece of litigation bought by the building owners against Mr. Antino’s clients. Having lost an earlier appeal of the Third surveyors award, the adjoining owner’s surveyor (Mr Kriztler) refused to respond to a request submitted by Mr. Antino to bring outstanding matters to a close under s.10 (6). Mr. Antino served an ex parte award. The building owners appealed the award. The appellant withdrew their appeal, costs ordered an indemnity basis.

Nessfield Ltd v Oi Tan Chan (2019) E20CL182

This was an appeal of the Third surveyors award in a party wall et cetera act 1996 case in which the adjoining owner’s surveyor (Mr Kriztler) was arguing for a trial pit to be excavated in relation to a loft conversion. Mr. Antino acting for Mrs Oi Tan Chan (the building owner). The adjoining owner’s surveyor attempted to block the building works with spurious and pejorative arguments. Following a referral to the third surveyor, Mr. Kritzler lost on all his objections. Having lodged an appeal of the third surveyors award, the building owners to submitted a defence which persuaded the building owners to discontinue the appeal. They were ordered to pay Mis Oi Tan Chan’s costs.

Sheila Carpel -v- Clydesdale Construction Ltd (2019)

Ms Carpel engaged Clydesdale Construction Ltd to carry out various refurbishment and repair/improvement works to her house, a dispute arose as to the adequacy of those building works, and Mr. Antino was appointed as a Single Joint Expert under District Judge Humphries, Order of the 11th January 2019. The Parties were representing themselves and failed to comply with every Order and/or to provide a joint letter of instruction to Mr. Antino.  The Parties reached a settlement.

Vinay Kulkarni v Rajinder Atker (2019) E00RM287

Philip was appointed on behalf of the Claimant Mr. Kulkarni, to assist in a boundary dispute between the parties where each own a flat and there was to the rear a shared garden divided at some point in the middle to create two separate gardens.  The Defendants had erected a fence moving the boundary over therefore enclosing and reducing Mr. Kulkarni’s Garden.  The Defendants appointed McBryer Beg, Chartered Surveyors, who market themselves as boundary experts.  The usual evidence was produced, requests for disclosure of various documents was requested by the Claimants which were not forthcoming.  At a preliminary hearing the Defendants lost their application for summary judgement and costs were awarded in favour of Philip’s client Mr. Kulkarni.

Zaher & Zaher v Patel (2019) and MacLachlan v Patel (2019)

Mr Patel ignored his obligations to serve notice under the Party Wall etc Act 1996. The adjoining owners made repeated requests that he stop the works and serve notices.  Mr. advised the Claimants that they should take immediate legal advice to seek an injunction. The injunction was granted and costs against Mr. Patel.

B-v-P (2018) identities withheld due to non-disclosure agreement

Philip Antino was appointed as the single joint expert in this professional negligence case. The Defendant (“P”) is a RICS Regulated firm who contracted to undertake a pre-purchase building survey of a grade II listed residential property on behalf of the Claimant. Shortly after purchase the drawing room floor collapsed. It was alleged that P had not undertaken the survey with the appropriate skill and care and had failed to identify that (I) the floor was suspended timber and (ii) that there was rot which was noticeable and should have been recorded within the survey. 

Philip found that P had wrongly described the floor as a solid concrete floor with wood finish, and that to any reasonably competent surveyor, it was evident that it was a suspended timber floor and that there was visible wood worm and evidence of rot and decay present. The surveyor had failed to apply the “Heel-drop” test and or take any damp meter readings of the floor as required within the RICS Guidance notes of building surveys. Mr. Antino held that B had not received appropriate advice to allow B to make an informed decision on whether to proceed, withdraw, or request further investigations. P’s PI insurers settled the claim and costs of £30,000 on the basis of no admission of liability and the non-disclosure clause.

Delroy Chambers v Ms Nadine Rostant-Gay (2018)

Philip Antino was instructed on behalf of the defendant Nadine Rostant-Gay. The Claimant was developing their land and required a greater amount of access road which involved the Defendant’s land. Rather than just making an offer to purchase the defendants land, they sought to allege (wrongly) that the defendants had taken their land. They embarked on a disastrous litigation. The party’s experts produced an agreed plan that showed that the Defendants had not taken any of the Claimant’s land. Prior to trial, the Claimants conceded (quite sensibly) and paid the Defendants legal costs of £39,000 in full and paid another £15,000 for a strip of land 150mm wide by 6500mm in length. Had the claimants been more open and transparent, the reality is that they could have avoided the £39,000 legal costs.

London Fire Brigade v Riaz Uddin (2018)

Mr Uddin obtained a sublease on a commercial property which had designated residential accommodation above for the business operators personal use only.  Without permission from the landlord, local authority planning, and building regulations departments, Mr. Uddin undertook structural alterations to separate the residential and commercial areas and to convert the majority of the building into bed sits and a house of multiple occupancy. The unlawful alterations were spotted by Mr. Antino during an annual inspection on behalf of the landlord.  Mr. bought this to the attention of the local authority, building control and planning departments who initiated investigations. The London Fire Brigade initiated legal proceedings. Mr. Uddin was convicted and received a 12-month sentence suspended for 2 years and 100 hours community service. The rents that he had unlawfully obtained over a period of 3 years (approximately £85,000 per year) were subject to an investigation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

(MB) -v- (RH) (2018) Adjudication identities withheld due to non-disclosure agreement

Philip Antino was instructed by MB in an adjudication in respect of defects to a swimming pool. During the works various inconsistencies with the quality of the work were raised and shortly after completion of the works, the tile surround started to lift away from the adhesive and sections started to drop.

It was agreed between the parties that the matter would be resolved through adjudication. RH was represented by surveyors. The Adjudicator found for the Referring Party on all grounds.  RH was therefore liable for the cost of further works to reinstate the swimming pool.

Ahmed v Moore & Moore (2017) Court of Appeal

Dr Ahmed having lost her case in 2012, made another application to appeal the earlier decisions, some 5 years after losing and well outside the timetable for the lodging of an appeal. Dr Ahmed argued that there were exceptional grounds for granting an appeal out of time. The Court of Appeal rejected Dr Ahmed’s application, recording that there were no extenuating grounds for the excessive delay in making the appeal application. Undeterred, Dr Ahmed made another application to appeal the Court of Appeal decision for refusing her grounds to appeal. The hearing was listed for the 27th February 2018. Mr. Richard Power of Lamb Chambers acted for the Moore’s, and argued that the further application should be dismissed, with a costs order in favour of Mr. & Mrs. Moore’.

Breach of Contract C-v-D (2017) Unlawful development and misrepresentation by prominent House Builder. Identities withheld due to non-disclosure agreement

Philip Was instructed by the Claimant (“C”) who had purchased a new home from the Defendant for £2,100,000 in an exclusive development in Essex.  Philip negotiated amendments and planning permission was granted. D settled liability for the diminution in value at £395,000.

2 months after moving in C and other owners received a summons from the local authority for a breach of planning, alleging that the rear landscape gardens (400-foot x 300 foot approx.) was agricultural land. The garden had been landscaped by D. The council advised that if they reverted the garden to agricultural use which would start 8 feet from the rear elevation of C’s house, the summons would be withdrawn. Mr. Antino (as he then was) was instructed by C and recommended two courses of action firstly, to sell the house back to D and sue for all out-of-pocket expenses and secondly to make an application for a change of use of the garden. The council had granted permission for a 5000 sq. foot house on a plot that did not comply with national and local planning policies.

Epping Forest Council (“EFC”) v Mr. & Mrs Craft (appellant) Enforcement Notice Breach of S.171A § (a) of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990. APP/J1535/C/16/3153786 & APP/J1535/C/16/3155445

The appellants live in the Metropolitan Green Belt area, they constructed new dwelling house without planning permission.  EFC took action to have the structure removed alleging the development was not appropriate for the Green Belt, for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework and whether the materials used were appropriate to the Green Belt. Mr. Antino represented the appellants and the Appeal was upheld on all grounds.

Keddie & Keddie v Day (2017)

The claimants sought and obtained an injunction against the defendant for starting building works without service of notice.

Mr & Mrs E Hussein v Mr. S Dassu (2017) Adjudication, N. A. Dight

Mr. Antino represented for Dassu in this building dispute. The referring party (Hussein) engaged Dassu to undertake significant building works to their property for £138,004 plus vat. A dispute arose, the respondent made allegations of poor workmanship alluded to in a report prepared by Mr. Campbell of Land Commercial Chartered Surveyors.

The adjudicator appointed to resolve the dispute, recorded “I agree with Mr. Antino’s opinion that Mr. Campbells report is akin to a snagging report rather than an experts report identifying by factual evidence and expert opinion alleged defects” Mr. Antino’s report had identified minor snagging items and incomplete works estimated at £6876 by way of abatement. The referring party rejected this opinion and sought £100,000. The adjudicator dismissed the claim accepting again Mr. Antino’s evidence and awarded after adjustments the referring party pay to the respondent a final payment of £15,078.00. in addition, the referring party were ordered to pay the adjudicators costs of paid the costs£12,602.88.  From anticipating a windfall of £100,000, the Referring party (Hussein) ended up paying £28,000 plus their own costs.

P. Ferguson & F. E. Ferguson v A. G. Lloyd-Baker (2017)

This relates to a basement and the issue of special foundations and section 7 (4). The Appellants (Ferguson) appealed an Award under section 17 of The Party Wall Act served by the building owners’ surveyor and third surveyor, who authorised special foundations on to the adjoining owners land, despite having withheld written consent under s.7(4). Lloyd-Baker’s surveyor had joined with the third surveyor to produce an award, contrary to the Appellants surveyor’s advice (Philip Antino) that the works could not proceed. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the Appellants (building owner) agreed to set aside the invalid award and pay the claimants’ costs. 

S. Hart v R Spencer (2017) (unreported)

The claimants on Mr. Antino’s advice obtained an injunction against the defendant for breaching Party Wall procedures and cost against Spencer.

Yawar Khan v Genesis Ruan (2017) Claim D20CL053 2017

The appellants (Yawar Khan) had commenced building works without the service of notice and were threatened with an injunction.  They stopped works, appointed a surveyor, his surveyor then failed to progress with matters correctly.  After many months of delay and two requests under s.10(7) to the building owners’ surveyor to join bring the matters to a natural conclusion. Mr. Antino had no option but to issue an ex-parte Award.  Mr. Khan appealed the Award that the hourly rate applied by Mr. Antino was (I) unreasonable, and therefore (ii) too high. 

Having been given an opportunity to settle Mr. Antino’s costs and having ignored both s.10(7) requests, Mr. Khan eventually realized that his case had no merit.  Having incurred considerable legal costs for both himself and the respondent, Mr. Khan withdrew the appeal.

Gibson & Gibson v Frisby (2016)

The claimants sought and obtained an injunction for breach of party wall legislation, Trespass, Boundary dispute, Nuisance and Damages.

Mills & Mills v Savage & Savage [2016]

Appeal of a Third Surveyors Award, by the building owners following their refusal to disclose their permanent residential address.

Mills & Mills v Sell & Sell [2016]

Appeal of a section 10(10)(a) & (b) Award between the Adjoining Owners Surveyor and Third surveyor following building owner’s refusal to comply with Third surveyors’ directions. 

Schmidt v Hulls & Athanousou [2016]

Preliminary hearing on two points of the Appeal of Award by the building owners following their refusal to appoint a surveyor following a breach of the consent to the works, and a trespass, damage and section 10(4) appointment before HHJ Luba QC

Best & Best v Parkins & Dennis [2015]

Best & Best instructed Mr. Antino for an Injunction for breach of party wall legislation, Boundary dispute, Trespass, Nuisance and Damages. HH Judge Hildyard [2015] recorded "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 claimant’s boundaries. Mr. Antino’s expertise as a master mason persuaded the Court that the boundary wall was a retaining wall wholly within the claimant's land and not as contested by the defendants the remains of a previous structure on their land."

Dodosh v Bibizadeh Romford County Court [2015]

Appeal of Party Wall Award, challenges to the Mr. Antino the Respondents (Adjoining Owners) Surveyor use of S.10 (4)(a) & (b) to appoint a surveyor, The Appellants (Building Owners) challenged Mr.  Antino's appointment and interpretation of S.10(4) (a) & (b) & S.10(5). Appeal Rejected HHJ Bailey Ruled P. Antino validly appointed.

Ferguson Court Residents Association Ltd v Mr. S Fisher (2015)

Injunction for breach of party wall legislation, Trespass and Nuisance, Damages.

Dodosh v Bibizadeh Romford County Court [2014]

Injunction for breach of Party Wall legislation, Trespass, Boundary dispute, Nuisance and Damages.

Sell & Sell v Mills & O’Callaghan [2014]

Philip advised that Sell and Sell should obtain an Injunction for breach of Party Wall legislation, Trespass, Nuisance and Damages.

Sparks v Mohammed [2013]

Appeal of Agreed Surveyor Party Wall Award, inadequate assessment of damages by Agreed party wall surveyor, Defendants settled on steps of Court. Sparks instructed Mr. Antino and was successful.

ChunkyChips.net Ltd v David Cunningham Associates Ltd (2012)

Breach of contract.

Eulett v Carter [2012] (unreported)

Injunction for breach of party wall legislation, Trespass, Boundary dispute, Nuisance and Damages.

Rusciani v Kumar and Sharma (2012) (unreported)

Injunction for breach of party wall legislation, Trespass, Boundary dispute, Nuisance and Damages. Committal proceedings, breach of contract, damages.

Bansal v Myers [2007] Unreported

Appeal of an ex-parte Award served by P Antino who determined his own costs following the building owners’ surveyor’s refusal to engage with the Act. HHJ Platt upheld the ex-parte award and interpretation and application of S.10(7) and S.10(13(c).