header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
21 April 2023 / Jamie Sutherland , Imogen Dodds
Issue: 8021 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Party wall disputes: in on the Act?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
119100
Jamie Sutherland & Imogen Dodds consider the respective scope of the Party Wall etc Act 1996 & the common law
  • An owner cannot use a statutory dispute resolution procedure where their neighbour has carried out works without serving a statutory party wall notice.
  • Their recourse is to the courts and common law when the statutory scheme has not been followed or does not apply.
  • Time and costs can be saved by both parties following proper procedures.

In the recent Court of Appeal case of Shah and another v Power [2023] EWCA Civ 239, [2023] All ER (D) 29 (Mar), Mr Shah had carried out works to his semi-detached house. Rightly or wrongly, his planning consultant had advised that the Party Wall etc Act 1996 (PWA 1996) did not apply to his works, and that there was consequently no need for him to serve prior notice of the works on the adjoining owners under s 3, PWA 1996. The adjoining owners subsequently claimed to have suffered

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll