On 12 November 2020 His Honour Edward Bailey gave a webinar for the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors on the subject of “Proper Conduct for the Party Wall Surveyor”.

It starts: “The aim of this Webinar is to consider what constitutes proper conduct by a Party Wall surveyor in the exercise of the dispute resolution functions arising under s 10 of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. It originates in a request by the Faculty to give a talk on the implications of the decision in Welter v McKeeve and McKeeve (CLCC 27.11.2018), but I have expanded the scope of the talk to consider the conduct that might reasonably be expected of a party wall surveyor from appointment, or selection, through to the service of an Award.”

This webinar was later transcribed and edited into what amounts to a very comprehensive article on the subject, and His Honour was kind enough to agree to it being published on this website as a guest article.

The full text of the article can be found here.

Written by 

One thought on “Proper Conduct for the party Wall Surveyor”

  1. Judge Bailey shows inconsistency and also ignores 10(6) and 10(7) of the Act that govern a party-appointed surveyor’s behaviour – the requirement to act ‘effectively’. If a surveyor fails to act effectively, like the surveyor in Welter v McKeeve, Judge Bailey incorrectly chastises the surveyor for not acting impartially. Throughout the judgement there are numerous referrals to one surveyor ‘ignoring’ another, and even a clear case of refusal to act (paragraph 31): ‘[the surveyor] was not prepared to take the question of a detailed breakdown further.’ The conduct of a surveyor is vital but is largely governed by section 10 as opposed to the requirement to act impartially (which is not referred to in the Act). There is a difference that Judge Bailey has muddied, between the requirement to act ‘effectively’ which applies to ALL surveyors, versus the requirement to act impartially, which does not include party-appointed surveyors.
    Judge Bailey seemingly goes on to contradict himself. For a 10(4) appointment in Russell Gray v Elite Town Management Limited Judge Bailey states ‘the court readily accepts that Mr Williams would have had to have searched far and wide to find a surveyor who shared Mr Gray’s views, but it would have been better, very much better, had a surveyor been selected who was prepared to show some sympathy for those views…’. This doesn’t sit well with his assertion that a party wall surveyor should act impartially.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *