The dispute concerned the boundary between two adjoining residential properties in Harold Wood, Essex. The claimants owned one property and the defendant the other. In 2011, following repeated flooding incidents, a Party Wall Award was agreed between the parties’ respective surveyors to address drainage issues. The surveyors purportedly determined the boundary line and proposed a shared box gutter solution.
Subsequently, the defendant issued nuisance proceedings, which were resolved by consent in 2013 under an order by HHJ Gerald. The order implemented the proposed construction scheme and referenced the boundary position.
In the current proceedings, the claimants sought enforcement of the boundary agreement and related works. The defendant disputed the validity of the Party Wall Award and the boundary determination, arguing that the surveyors lacked jurisdiction and that the prior order did not resolve the boundary issue.
The court struck out the defendant’s defence as an abuse of process and declared the boundary position as agreed in 2011. The defendant appealed.
The appeal challenged the trial judge’s findings on three grounds:
Counsel advised on the procedural history and the implications of the Party Wall Award and prior court orders. The appeal focused on whether the boundary had been lawfully determined and whether the defendant’s defence was barred by issue estoppel. Counsel prepared submissions addressing jurisdiction under the Party Wall Act, the enforceability of the Award, and the scope of the 2013 consent order. The matter proceeded to appeal with the defendant seeking permission on all grounds.
Call us – Mon-Fri 8:30am – 6:30pm
+44 (0) 20 3034 0077
By submitting this form, I accept this website’s Privacy Policy