🏛️ Hansard vs Judicial Interpretation: A Clear Misalignment
Hansard records from the passage of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 leave no doubt about Parliament’s intent. The Act was designed to protect adjoining owners and place the burden of compliance squarely on building owners.
🔍 Key Hansard Highlights
During the debates:
Lord Lytton described the Act as a framework for preventing disputes and safeguarding both parties.
Lord Lucas, speaking for the Government, made it clear:
“The Bill places the onus on the building owner to serve notice and comply with the procedures. It is not for the adjoining owner to chase compliance.”
This legislative intent reflects a proactive and protective statutory scheme—one that assumes adjoining owners should not suffer due to a building owner’s failure to serve notice.
⚖️ Judicial Decisions in Contrast
Despite this clarity, recent case law has veered in conflicting directions.
In Shah v Kyson & Power (2020), HHJ Parfitt voided a surveyors’ award on the basis that no notice had been served. He held that without notice, the Act was not engaged, and therefore surveyors lacked jurisdiction. This strict procedural stance directly contradicts Hansard’s emphasis on protecting adjoining owners.
Yet in Yamin v Edwards, Power & Kyson (2019), the same judge upheld a surveyors’ award despite no notice being served. He found no agreement to exclude the Act and treated it as engaged by default—suggesting a more flexible, purposive approach.
In Park Lane Holdings v Khan (2021), HHJ Parfitt again allowed surveyors’ jurisdiction to stand, even though procedural irregularities were present. This decision aligned more closely with Hansard’s protective ethos.
Then in Nutt v Podger (2021), he awarded £750 in damages for breach of the Act, despite no notice being served. The judgment acknowledged that the adjoining owner had been “wrongfully deprived of the protections of the 1996 Act”—a clear recognition of the statutory purpose outlined in Hansard.
Finally, in Power v Shah (2023), the Court of Appeal endorsed HHJ Parfitt’s “no notice, no Act” doctrine. Despite notifiable works and resulting damage, the absence of a formal notice was deemed fatal to surveyors’ jurisdiction. This ruling effectively rewards non-compliance and leaves adjoining owners without statutory recourse.
🧩 Conclusion
The Hansard review reveals a stark disconnect between Parliament’s intent and the judiciary’s application. While Hansard places the burden on building owners and affirms the Act’s protective purpose, Power v Shah and similar rulings shift that burden onto adjoining owners, nullifying the Act when procedural missteps occur.
This contradiction invites urgent clarification—either through legislative amendment or authoritative judicial guidance—to realign practice with Parliament’s original vision.