One thought on “Amir-Siddique v Kowaliw (18th May 2018)”

  1. Interesting sting in the tail at Paras. 41 & 42. Although not stated in the transcript I presume that the judge’s decision must have been based on the building owner’s surveyors having not been formally appointed viz. Para. 18 “The Appellant appointed Mr Owen (although whether formally for the purposes of s10(2) of the Act is unclear)”. Mr. Owen was acting for the building owner in early July and she did not request the adjoining owner’s surveyor to act as agreed surveyor until late July. If Mr. Owen had been properly appointed, s10(2) would have precluded the building owner from rescinding his appointment.

    Presumably therefore, adjoining owners who refuse to concur in the appointment of their chosen surveyor as the agreed surveyor should now be advised that they may be liable for the building owner’s surveyor’s fee, or a proportion thereof, if the building owner has not yet appointed a surveyor of his own at the time he makes the agreed surveyor request.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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