⚡ One Minute Summary — Party Wall Jurisdiction Split

Two High Court cases pull in opposite directions:

  • Power v Shah — Formalist: No notice = no jurisdiction. Surveyors can’t act, even if the dispute clearly falls within the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.

  • Park Lane Holdings v Khan — Purposive: Surveyors may act if the dispute is substantively within the Act, even if notice was defective or absent.

What’s at stake:

  • Shah prioritises strict compliance, ensuring predictability but risking unprotected adjoining owners.

  • Park Lane prioritises protection, resolving disputes but increasing the risk of later legal challenge.

Bottom line:
Surveyors face a “compliance vs protection” dilemma until the courts or Parliament resolve the conflict.

Full article:

⚖️ Judicial Divergence in Party Wall Jurisdiction

Park Lane Holdings v Khan as a Counterpoint to Power v Shah

🧭 Overview

This article builds on our earlier analysis of Power v Shah, where a strict procedural reading of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 risked undermining its core protective purpose. Here, we turn to Park Lane Holdings v Khan — a High Court decision taking a more pragmatic and purposive view of jurisdiction under the Act.

If you missed the first piece, read: Power v Shah: A Contradiction at the Heart of Party Wall Jurisdiction.

🔍 The Central Question

For both cases, the issue is the same:

If a building owner fails to serve notice under the Act, do surveyors lose all jurisdiction to resolve the dispute?

  • Power v Shah: Yes. No notice = no jurisdiction.

  • Park Lane Holdings v Khan: Not necessarily. Surveyors may still act if the dispute falls substantively within the Act.

🧠 Park Lane’s Purposive Approach

In Park Lane, the High Court considered whether procedural missteps automatically stripped surveyors of power. It emphasised:

  • The need for a purposive reading of the Act.

  • Protecting adjoining owners even when building owners fail to comply.

  • Surveyors’ role as resolvers of disputes, not just procedural gatekeepers.

This mirrors the legislative intent recorded in Hansard: prioritising protection and resolution over rigid formalism.

⚖️ Where the Cases Diverge — Narrative Comparison

1. Jurisdictional Trigger

  • Shah: Jurisdiction exists only with a valid notice. Without it, awards are void.

  • Park Lane: Jurisdiction can survive procedural defects if the dispute’s nature falls within the Act.

2. Procedural Purity vs Substantive Justice

  • Shah: Upholds strict compliance to maintain predictability.

  • Park Lane: Favours flexibility to achieve the Act’s protective purpose.

3. Surveyor Decision-Making

  • Shah: Acting without notice risks being ultra vires.

  • Park Lane: Acting is permissible if within scope — but awards risk later challenge.

4. Legislative Intent Alignment

  • Shah: Weak alignment — prioritises form over purpose.

  • Park Lane: Strong alignment — reflects Parliament’s intent to safeguard adjoining owners.

5. Practical Risk for Practitioners

  • Shah: Low risk if strictly followed; high risk of injustice when owners avoid the Act.

  • Park Lane: Better owner protection; higher risk of legal challenge.

🧱 Why This Matters

Surveyors are left in a compliance vs protection bind:

  • Decline appointments without notice (Shah) and risk leaving adjoining owners unprotected.

  • Proceed under purposive reasoning (Park Lane) and risk later jurisdictional challenges.

The uncertainty creates legal and professional exposure — precisely what the Act was meant to prevent.

📝 Conclusion

The split between Power v Shah and Park Lane Holdings v Khan shows a fracture in the courts’ reading of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.

  • Shah imposes a procedural straitjacket.

  • Park Lane offers a flexible, protection-driven framework.

For the Act to work as intended, higher courts — or Parliament — must reconcile these approaches and restore clarity for practitioners.

🔗 Related Reading