⚖️ May & Crown Ltd v Shipton & Shipton [H20CL085]
Alex Frame’s Award Under Scrutiny
📌 Case Snapshot
Court: Central London County Court (TCC list)
Judge: HHJ Johns QC
Date: 2 December 2021
Dispute: Sewer damage allegedly caused by notifiable piling works
Third Surveyor: Alex Frame
Outcome: Appeal failed on jurisdiction & procedure, but award reduced by ~47% due to calculation errors.
✅ What Frame Got Right
🔎 Jurisdictional finding
Frame identified the piling as notifiable works and held that the major damage was caused by those works. The court accepted this as a factual finding within his remit.
📂 Evidence-based decision
He relied on the material provided by the parties (including a contractor’s admission) and was not required to conduct independent investigations or site visits.
🚫 No site visit = no irregularity
Since the damage had been repaired and adequate photos/evidence existed, the absence of a site visit did not undermine the award.
✍️ Reasons — brevity tolerated
Though short, Frame’s reasoning was sufficient. The judge noted that there is no strict statutory duty to give detailed reasons.
⚠️ Where Frame Fell Short
💷 Arithmetic errors in quantum
Original award: £16,850.72
Corrected award (by consent): £8,890.28
Nearly half the sum was struck off due to calculation mistakes.
This was the only substantive shortcoming upheld on appeal, but it was significant. It shows the importance of transparent, tabulated calculations in party wall awards.
| Head of Claim | Frame’s Award (£) | Corrected by Court (£) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pipe repair & reinstatement | 7,250.00 | 7,250.00 | Accepted in full |
| Temporary disruption / loss | 3,500.00 | 1,500.00 | Reduced — excess allowed |
| Consequential redecoration | 2,800.00 | 0.00 | Struck out entirely |
| Professional fees (engineer/plumber reports) | 1,800.72 | 140.28 | Calculation error corrected |
| Total | 16,850.72 | 8,890.28 | Reduction of ~47% |
📝 Minimal reasoning = risk
Although upheld, Frame’s sparse reasoning left the award open to attack. A more structured approach (jurisdiction → causation → heads of loss → sums) would have provided better insulation from challenge.
📊 Assessing business losses
The judge confirmed surveyors may consider business/financial evidence even without specialist training. But this highlights the need to reference and reconcile figures explicitly to avoid accusations of overreach.
🧩 Lessons for Surveyors
State the causation link clearly — identify which notifiable works caused what damage.
Show your working — use line-by-line calculations and attach schedules.
Invite evidence where thin — even if not obliged, it protects against later criticism.
Structure reasons — keep them short but ordered; this reduces exposure to appeal.
📉 Bottom Line on Alex Frame
No procedural failings were found: jurisdiction, reasoning, and absence of a site visit were all upheld.
The real weakness was in quantum — the arithmetic errors that almost halved the award.
For practitioners, the case stands as a caution: accuracy in numbers is just as important as accuracy in law.
📰 Meta description
May & Crown Ltd v Shipton & Shipton [H20CL085] examined Alex Frame’s Third Surveyor award. The court upheld jurisdiction but slashed the award by 47% due to calculation errors — a cautionary tale for party wall surveyors on the importance of rigorous quantum assessment.