`Kaye v Lawrence` revisited: The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 and the revolution of 1894

As the High Court itself anticipated, two-and-a-half years ago the judgment of Mr Justice Ramsey in Kaye v Lawrence [2010] EWHC 2678 (TCC) generated much interest among party wall surveyors, in particular the perceived extension of the availability of ‘security for expenses’ to an adjoining owner where a building owner is carrying out work entirely on his own land. The issue of security for expenses is to some extent merely the tip of the iceberg, being one logical outcome of a defining of the relationship of established common law rights with rights conferred by the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. The judgment is in fact a mine (some may say minefield) of long-awaited clarification on a number of matters that have sharply divided party wall surveyors for years. Mr Justice Ramsey's ruling gives clear guidance not only on the application of security for expenses but also rights of access onto an adjoining owner's land in order to carry out works on the building owner's land and the authority of surveyors to deal with insurance by the building owner and the design team. Uncertainty and differences of opinion between appointed surveyors on fundamental matters are unhelpful to parties caught up in the Act and can lead to significant unnecessary costs for the hapless building owner. Party wall surveyors of all persuasions would better serve the parties who appoint them and the intention of parliament by welcoming the clarity given by the few cases that reach the higher courts and then applying it with the practical even-handedness for which they are justly regarded by the judiciary.