The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 sets out clear statutory procedures, but much of how the Act is interpreted in practice has been shaped by case law. Over the years, the courts have clarified grey areas around notices, access, surveyor powers, and disputes.
Understanding the most influential party wall cases helps building owners, adjoining owners, and surveyors avoid costly mistakes and better appreciate how the Act operates in real-world situations.
Below are five of the most important party wall–related case laws, explained in plain English, and why they still matter today.
1. Kaye v Lawrence (2010)
Scope of Works and Excessive Use of the Act
Why this case matters:
This case clarified that the Party Wall Act cannot be used to justify unnecessary or excessive works.
Key principle:
A building owner may only rely on the Act to carry out works that are genuinely required for the permitted purpose. The Act does not grant a free licence to carry out more invasive work than is reasonably necessary.
Practical takeaway:
- Surveyors must carefully assess whether proposed works are proportionate
- Building owners cannot “overbuild” and rely on the Act as protection
- Adjoining owners can challenge works that go beyond necessity
This case is frequently referenced when disputes arise over extent of cutting into walls, beam sizes, or structural alterations.
2. Roadrunner Properties Ltd v Dean (2004)
Validity of Party Wall Notices
Why this case matters:
It confirmed that invalid or poorly drafted notices undermine the entire party wall process.
Key principle:
A Party Wall Notice must be clear, accurate, and compliant with the Act. If it is defective, the adjoining owner is not obliged to respond, and the process cannot progress lawfully.
Practical takeaway:
- Notices must correctly describe the works
- Incorrect dates, vague descriptions, or missing details can invalidate a notice
- Re-serving a notice restarts statutory timeframes
This case underlines why professionally prepared notices are so important, especially for DIY projects.
3. Onigbanjo v Pearson (2008)
Access Rights Are Not Unlimited
Why this case matters:
It clarified the limits of access rights under the Act.
Key principle:
While the Party Wall Act allows access to neighbouring land, access must be:
- Necessary
- Reasonable
- Limited to what is strictly required to carry out the works
Access cannot be used for convenience or general site operations.
Practical takeaway:
- Surveyors must carefully define access provisions
- Building owners cannot demand unrestricted access
- Adjoining owners retain strong protections over their land
This case is particularly relevant to scaffolding, temporary access, and contractor movement.
4. Lehmann v Herman (1993)
Early Authority on Shared Walls and Rights
(Although predating the 1996 Act, this case remains influential.)
Why this case matters:
It helped establish early principles around shared ownership and mutual rights, which later informed the drafting of the Party Wall Act.
Key principle:
A shared wall creates reciprocal rights and obligations. Neither owner may use the wall in a way that unreasonably interferes with the other’s property.
Practical takeaway:
- The concept of fairness between neighbours is central to party wall law
- The Act builds on long-standing common law principles
- Surveyors must balance competing rights carefully
This case is often cited when discussing the philosophy behind the Act.
5. Chaturachinda v Fairholme Gardens (No. 2) (2015)
Surveyor Jurisdiction and Award Limits
Why this case matters:
It clarified the limits of a party wall surveyor’s authority.
Key principle:
Surveyors can only decide matters arising under the Party Wall Act. They cannot rule on:
- General trespass claims
- Planning disputes
- Matters unrelated to notifiable works
Practical takeaway:
- Party Wall Awards must stay within statutory scope
- Surveyors must avoid including non-party-wall issues
- Parties may need separate legal remedies for non-Act disputes
This case is critical for ensuring awards remain legally robust and enforceable.
Why Case Law Still Matters in 2026
Although the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 has remained largely unchanged, case law continues to shape how it is applied. Courts refine interpretations, clarify boundaries, and reinforce fairness.
For building owners, these cases show:
- Why correct notices are essential
- Why surveyor neutrality matters
- Why “doing it properly” is always cheaper than litigation
For adjoining owners, they confirm:
- Strong legal protections exist
- Access and disruption must be justified
- Surveyors are not free to overreach
Final Thoughts
Party wall case law reinforces a simple message:
the Act is about balance, fairness, and proper process.
Understanding these key cases helps prevent disputes before they arise and ensures projects proceed lawfully and smoothly.
Need Expert Party Wall Advice?
At Simple Survey, we apply both the statute and the case law to every instruction — ensuring notices, awards, and procedures are legally sound from day one.
📧 Contact: team@simplesurvey.co.uk
💬 Free initial advice for building owners and adjoining owners