🧾 Parliamentary and Legal Commentary on HHJ Parfitt’s Party Wall Decisions

There has been growing concern—reflected in legal commentary and professional forums—that HHJ Parfitt’s rulings have created uncertainty and diminished protections for adjoining owners under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.

One widely cited critique is that his interpretation in Shah v Kyson & Power effectively removes statutory safeguards for adjoining owners when building owners fail to serve notice. By ruling that the Act is not engaged without notice, HHJ Parfitt has arguably enabled building owners to “ride roughshod” over neighbours, leaving them reliant on costly common law remedies such as injunctions or claims in trespass.

This concern is echoed in professional commentary, including:

• The view that adjoining owners cannot impose an award under the Act unless the building owner has served notice. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, reinforcing the “no notice, no Act” doctrine.

• The observation that HHJ Parfitt’s decisions conflict, even within his own judgments. In Yamin, he upheld surveyors’ jurisdiction despite no notice. In Shah, he voided the award entirely. In Nutt v Podger, he awarded damages for breach of the Act—again without notice being served.

• The suggestion that Parfitt’s approach undermines the statutory framework, shifting the burden onto adjoining owners to pursue remedies outside the Act, which defeats its purpose as a protective and impartial mechanism.

These concerns have prompted calls for reform, either through statutory amendment or authoritative clarification by higher courts. The inconsistency in judicial interpretation—particularly from the same judge—has left surveyors, building owners, and adjoining owners navigating a legal landscape riddled with uncertainty.