Zissis v Lukomski and another
Zissis v Lukomski and another
- 2006
[2006] EWCA Civ 341, 5 April 2006. Z appealed against an order dismissing a claim against L that an addendum award made by C, a surveyor appointed by L under the Party Wall Etc Act 1996 be rescinded. A dispute arose between Z and L, owners of adjoining buildings, in respect in works proposed by Z. An independent surveyor, appointed by Z and L's respective surveyors, made an award authorising works but not dealing with C's fees. The independent surveyor then declared himself incapable of acting. After Z's surveyor failed to respond to a request from C in respect of his fees, C made an addendum award under the 1996 Act s10(17) requiring Z to pay. Z's claim for rescission or modification of the award was dismissed. "Held": an appeal to a county court against an award under s10(17) was governed by the Civil Procedure Rules Part 52. The court had ample powers under Part 52 to determine the appeal. The district judge had been wrong to dismiss the claim when he found the addendum award was invalid, and should either have allowed Z to amend her particulars of claim to seek a declaration that the award was a nullity, or allowed proceedings to go ahead under CPR 52. Z's conduct was not such as to merit indemnity costs, which should be assessed on a standard basis.
ZISSIS V LUKOMSKI AND ANOTHER
CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES PART 52
PARTY WALL ETC ACT 1996
[2006] EWCA Civ 341, 5 April 2006. Z appealed against an order dismissing a claim against L that an addendum award made by C, a surveyor appointed by L under the Party Wall Etc Act 1996 be rescinded. A dispute arose between Z and L, owners of adjoining buildings, in respect in works proposed by Z. An independent surveyor, appointed by Z and L's respective surveyors, made an award authorising works but not dealing with C's fees. The independent surveyor then declared himself incapable of acting. After Z's surveyor failed to respond to a request from C in respect of his fees, C made an addendum award under the 1996 Act s10(17) requiring Z to pay. Z's claim for rescission or modification of the award was dismissed. "Held": an appeal to a county court against an award under s10(17) was governed by the Civil Procedure Rules Part 52. The court had ample powers under Part 52 to determine the appeal. The district judge had been wrong to dismiss the claim when he found the addendum award was invalid, and should either have allowed Z to amend her particulars of claim to seek a declaration that the award was a nullity, or allowed proceedings to go ahead under CPR 52. Z's conduct was not such as to merit indemnity costs, which should be assessed on a standard basis.
ZISSIS V LUKOMSKI AND ANOTHER
CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES PART 52
PARTY WALL ETC ACT 1996