Search results

Notes the ambiguities within the party wall legislation. Describes the “proceduralist” and “rightist” approaches to interpretation of the statute. Provides examples of each approach. Traces the development of the current judicial approach to interpretation and describes surveyors’ responses to this. Cites the recent case of Frances Holland School v. Wassef [2001] as demonstrating the consistency of the judicial approach. Discusses issues, raised by the case, relating to ex parte awards and the statutory definition of “owner”. Concludes that surveyors should follow a rightist approach to the legislation, whilst also understanding the limits of the rightist doctrine.

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”.

Examines recent forms of the listed building legislation in the context of alterations to listed parish churches. Identifies the effect of a church listing and notes the origins and legislative effect of the Ecclesiastical Exemption. Explains the workings of the Faculty Jurisdiction and summarizes the major changes introduced by the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1993. Discusses the movement to abolish or reform the Ecclesiastical Exemption which culminated in the introduction of the Ecclesiastical Exemption (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Order 1994. Summarizes the effect of this order. Considers whether the process of reform is now complete and concludes that while continuing minor adjustments are likely no further major reforms can be expected within the foreseeable future.

Examines the obligations to avoid unnecessary inconvenience and to pay compensation for loss or damage within the Party Wall, etc. Act 1996. Considers the argument that the two obligations are directly related. Demonstrates that the obligation to pay compensation only relates to work lawfully undertaken under the Act and that the obligation to avoid unnecessary inconvenience exists to define the limits of such work. Concludes that the two obligations are separate but complementary aspects of the statutory code and that no direct relationship exists between the two.

Aims to examine judicial attitudes to current surveying practice in rights to light disputes. Tests the assumption that the use of the Waldram methodology is endorsed by the courts and seeks to establish whether, despite its acknowledged limitations, its continued use can be justified on this basis.

Analyses reported judgments.

Neither the 50‐50 rule, nor any other aspect of the Waldram methodology, has the status of a rule of law, or is otherwise approved of by the courts. On the contrary, the methodology has been the subject of judicial criticism. Although the courts frequently rely on the expert evidence presented to them, they have consistently expressed disquiet over aspects of the methodology. Particular concerns have been expressed over its inability to cater for the effects of sunlight and externally reflected light, on its dependence on internal room design, and on its failure to distinguish task illumination from general room lighting. There is also no indication that the judiciary are aware of the extent to which the Waldram threshold of adequate illuminance falls short of that prescribed by contemporary standards. The paper concludes that the courts' attitudes to the Waldram methodology cannot therefore justify its continued use by surveyors, either when acting in the capacity of expert witness, or when advising clients who may be contemplating litigation in a rights to light dispute.

Makes a further contribution to the debate, started in this journal in 2000, about the future of surveying practice in rights to light disputes.

Places new information in the public domain which has implications for judges in future rights to light cases, and for the professional liability of surveyors when advising clients in contemplation of possible rights to light litigation.

Presents the first comprehensive analysis of judicial attitudes to modern rights to light surveying practice since its introduction in the early part of the twentieth century.