🧱 Party Wall Fee Dispute: A Comprehensive Case Study

Forest Road, Loughton

⚖️ Background

This case concerns a fee dispute under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, referred to the Third Surveyor, Alan Bright FRICS, following disagreement between:

  • Adjoining Owner’s Surveyor (AS): Andrew Schofield FRICS

  • Building Owner’s Surveyor (LK): Lee Kyson MSc FCIArb

The dispute arose over the fees claimed by AS for his involvement in a domestic loft conversion and associated works.

📌 Disputed Matter

  • AS Claimed: £4,005 + VAT + disbursements

  • LK Offered: £1,600 + VAT

  • Third Surveyor Awarded AS: £2,000 + VAT

  • Third Surveyor Fee: £1,000 + VAT (payable by Adjoining Owner)

🧾 Submissions & Key Contentions

🔍 Disputed Clauses Proposed by AS

AS proposed clauses in the award that included:

  • Loss of life and injury liability

  • Pressure cleaning of the roof

  • Heavy-duty felt and battens for temporary weathering

LK argued these were:

  • Outside the scope of the Party Wall Act

  • Legally unenforceable

  • Technically flawed or unnecessary

  • Risked imposing design liability on surveyors

These were ultimately removed from the award, and AS later agreed they were inappropriate.

🧑‍💼 Delegation to Stephen Parker

  • SP, a director at Schofield Surveyors, was delegated tasks by AS.

  • SP proposed amendments to the award, none of which were adopted.

  • AS later took over the matter but still charged for SP’s time.

  • Third Surveyor found this to be double accounting and contrary to case law:

    • Barberini v Stancati (2016) – No delegation of statutory duties.

    • Gyle-Thompson v Wall Street (1971) – Duties must be personally carried out.

🧱 The Single Brick Wall Claim

  • AS claimed to have identified the party wall’s inadequate thickness.

  • LK demonstrated:

    • AS had never visited the site prior to the Schedule of Condition.

    • The issue was raised and confirmed by LK during inspection.

    • AS’s claim was therefore factually incorrect.

📄 AS’s View of the Award

AS stated:

“I did not like it then and I still don’t.”

Despite this, he signed the award and agreed to its terms. This raises questions about professional consistency and procedural integrity.

📚 Legal & Professional Framework

🧑‍⚖️ Case Law Referenced

  • Patel v Peters (2001) – Fees must reflect value added.

  • Faulkner v Layton (2001) – Double accounting not permitted.

  • Barberini v Stancati (2016) – No delegation of statutory duties.

  • Gyle-Thompson v Wall Street (1971) – Duties must be personally carried out.

  • Leadbetter v Marylebone Corporation (1905) – Costs for unnecessary complications not awarded.

  • Henshall v Porter (1923) – Costs follow the event.

  • Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969) – But-for test applied.

📘 RICS Guidance

  • Party Wall Guidance Note (6th Ed., 2019):

“Surveyors should make every reasonable effort to resolve disagreements before referring to the Third Surveyor.”

LK argued that AS prematurely referred the matter without exhausting negotiation avenues.

🧠 Third Surveyor’s Findings

  • AS’s delegation to SP was improper.

  • SP’s amendments added no value.

  • AS’s fee was excessive and partially duplicated.

  • LK’s submission was substantially upheld.

  • AO to pay Third Surveyor’s fee.

✅ Conclusion

This case highlights:

  • The importance of professional restraint and statutory compliance.

  • The need for transparent fee structures and constructive engagement.

  • The value of legal precedent and RICS guidance in resolving disputes.