Search results

The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 makes provision for the service of party structure notices on adjoining property owners where certain types of work are undertaken to party walls and other structures between neighbouring properties. The paper emphasises the difficulty of determining whether a notice should be served in a particular situation and the importance for property managers of making a correct decision. A systematic approach is proposed whereby each of the component parts of the task is addressed separately before a final decision is made. The paper examines these component parts and applies the relevant legal rules to each in the context of circumstances frequently encountered in practice.

Considers the reasons for the invalidity of party wall awards. Examines decided cases under earlier party wall legislation in the context of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. Explains invalidity on the basis of an excess of the surveyors’ statutory authority. Defines this authority in terms of jurisdiction and power. Demonstrates the limits of the surveyors’ authority and emphasises the importance of strict compliance with statutory procedures. Concludes that surveyors should adopt an inquisitive and analytical approach to the scope of their authority to avoid the possibility of invalid awards. Echoes John Anstey’s earlier warning that surveyors should avoid a broad‐brush approach to their duties which will only leave them “covered in soot”.

This paper notes the challenges faced by surveyors outside London by the demands of implementing the new party wall legislation. It pays tribute to John Anstey’s guidance in this area and emphasises the importance of adopting a practical and common‐sense approach to the legislation. It cites a recent example where this approach was found to be successful and notes the continuing development of party wall expertise nationwide.

This paper considers the legal status of a surveyor appointed under section 10 of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. By reference to that Act as well as to the Arbitration Act 1996, the European Convention and to rules of natural justice it argues that the section 10 procedure is a statutory arbitration. It therefore argues that the appointed surveyor is an arbitrator who must be independent, act impartially, and be immune from suit. It also suggests that surveyors’ awards can be adopted as judgments by the courts and that they can only be appealed against provided the strict appeals criteria of the Arbitration Act are met.

This paper aims to consider the right created by section 8 of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, which allows an owner of a property to enter on to an adjoining owner's property without their consent, while protecting the adjoining owner's legal rights. It identifies the procedures that an adjoining owner has to prevent unlawful access and to protect themselves from damages arising from the access.

The paper reviews the implementation of that part of the Act dealing with access, informed by the author's professional experience as a party wall surveyor.

While there is an explicit right of access on to an adjoining owner's property, the access is for works “in pursuance of the Act”. If the building owner can satisfy this criterion then the right of access is provided. If not, the access is a trespass and therefore should be dealt with as a tort in common law. The paper identifies the correct processes and factual evidence required to achieve access.

This paper makes a contribution to the limited existing literature and theoretical interpretations of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. It provides a framework for considering the procedures and principles necessary to achieve a right of access, while protecting the adjoining owner rights.

In accordance with instructions received through — we have carried out a detailed inspection of the subject property in order to advise you in connection with your proposed purchase of a leasehold interest for an unexpired term of 12 years.

This study uses the concept of standing, or legitimacy, to bridge the disciplinary divide between social movement and communication scholarship on activism. Here, the authors examine whether activist standing in 269 broadcast news stories sampled between 1970 and 2012 across five social movements – Women’s Rights, Gay Rights, Immigrant Rights, Occupy Wall Street, and Tea Party – is undermined by (1) the mix of visuals included in media coverage and (2) activists’ social statuses at the intersection of gender, race, and age. The authors find that broadcast media undercut the standing of activists in some social movements more than others. Occupy activists faced the most challenges to their standing because they were more likely to be shown as angry, young protestors wearing anti-government costumes and engaged in nonnormative protest behavior than activists associated with other movements. In contrast, Tea Party movement activists, who also made anti-government claims during the same relative time frame, were not cast in a similarly negative light. The authors also find that activist standing is diminished and enhanced at the intersection of gender, race, and age. For example, the social movements with the most racial diversity – the immigrant rights and Occupy movements – were also shown as the most deviant and deserving violent repression in coverage. The authors conclude the study with a discussion of the importance of interdisciplinary research and a call for additional research on the movement–media relationship.