Jurisdiction, Ex Parte Awards and Limitation: Lessons from K Group v Saidco and Patel v Peters
posted 5th January 2026
1) K Group Holdings Inc & Anr v Saidco International SA & Ors (Central London County Court, HHJ Parfitt, 19 July 2021) (transcript/unreported)
What the dispute was about (in plain terms)
• Works to parts of Aldford House (Park Lane area) were carried out around 2009 (and the background ran into later years).
• In November 2020 a party wall surveyor (Mr Hemy) made an “award” years after the original events, including:
o a large compensation figure (the judgment refers to €445,000 for an alleged leak said to date back to 2009)
o other wide-ranging requirements (including trying to require removal of structures)
•
• The long leasehold interests had changed hands since 2009, and the judge considered the way the 2020 award was produced to be exceptionally inappropriate.
What HHJ Parfitt decided
HHJ Parfitt held the November 2020 award was a “nullity” and set it aside, upholding multiple grounds of appeal. Key points surveyors care about:
A. No “overarching” continuing jurisdiction
The judge rejected the idea that a surveyor can treat an old award as giving them a roving commission to determine anything that later “might arise” about those works:
“…what cannot happen is for the surveyor to take for himself a sort of overarching jurisdiction to determine anything that might arise at any point…”
Implication: if something new arises years later, you generally need to re-check: is there a current dispute, between the current “owners”, triggering fresh section 10 machinery (appointments etc.)?
B. You need the right dispute + the right parties + valid appointments
The court found (among other things) there was no relevant dispute with the appellants, and the surveyor was not properly appointed in a dispute between the correct parties.
Implication: don’t assume you can proceed against (or on behalf of) whoever is now on the title unless the Act’s “owner” status and appointment steps are actually satisfied for this dispute.
C. Ex parte / acting alone has narrow limits
The judge said there are only limited circumstances to act alone/ex parte and they weren’t met here.
Implication: surveyors should be extremely cautious about “single surveyor” awards unless the statutory preconditions are clearly met and documented.
D. Natural justice still matters
The judgment stresses you can’t make an award against someone who has no real notice it’s happening and no opportunity to be heard.
Implication: even though party wall is meant to be practical and not overly formal, the basics (notice of what you’re deciding, chance to make submissions, considering those submissions) protect the award from appeal.
E. Limitation Act point: compensation can be time-barred
On limitation, the judge accepted that (if it’s a statutory compensation claim under the Act) it is subject to the 6-year bar, running from when damage was first suffered; he treated it as caught by s.9 Limitation Act 1980 (sums recoverable by virtue of an enactment).
Implication for surveyors:
• If an adjoining owner is asking you to award compensation for damage allegedly suffered more than 6 years ago, this case is a big warning sign: you should squarely consider limitation before including any compensation sum in an award.
F. Surveyors can’t grant injunctions
The judge said requiring removal of structures was not something the surveyor could do under the Act—injunction-type relief is for the court.
Implication: keep awards within the statutory lane: regulating notifiable works and making-good/compensation as allowed by the Act, not court-only remedies.
G. Surveyors can’t “enforce” by making another award
The judge also criticised attempts to enforce payment via further awards—stating surveyors can’t enforce their awards themselves and would need to go to court (he mentions the Magistrates’ Court as the obvious route in context).
Implication: an award is not the same thing as enforcement; don’t try to turn enforcement into new “jurisdiction”.
Weight of authority note: this is a County Court appeal decision (highly influential and often cited in practice, but not the same precedential weight as a Court of Appeal authority).
2) Patel v Peters [2014] EWCA Civ 335 (Court of Appeal)
What it was about
This was a Court of Appeal decision about when one surveyor may proceed ex parte under:
• s.10(6) (“refuses to act effectively”), and
• s.10(7) (“neglects to act effectively for 10 days after a request”).
The practical context was a fight about surveyors’ fees/costs and whether the adjoining owners’ surveyor was entitled to issue ex parte awards for his own fees because the building owners’ surveyor allegedly wasn’t cooperating.
What the Court of Appeal decided (key holdings)
A. The “10 days” in s.10(7) doesn’t permanently disable the other surveyor
The Court held that even if a surveyor fails to respond effectively within the 10-day period, if they then do act effectively before the requesting surveyor actually proceeds ex parte, the rationale for ex parte disappears and the requesting surveyor should not still act ex parte.
Surveyor implication: if you serve a s.10(7) request, you may gain the ability to go ex parte at day 10—but you can also lose it if the other surveyor meaningfully engages before you act.
B. “Refusal/neglect to act effectively” is a high threshold: disagreement ≠ refusal
The Court found the building owners’ surveyor had not refused/neglected to act effectively merely because he wouldn’t review timesheets; he engaged with the issue, gave reasons, proposed an alternative basis, and said it should go to the third surveyor. That was not refusal/neglect, so the ex parte fee awards were not justified.
Surveyor implication:
• If the real issue is “we (the two surveyors) disagree”, the Act’s intended mechanism is referral to the third surveyor—not one surveyor going ex parte to decide his own fees.
C. Appeals are time-limited (context point)
The Court contrasted s.10(7) with the strict time limit in s.10(17) (14-day appeal period), underscoring that s.10(7) isn’t drafted as a hard cut-off with permanent consequences.
So what are the practical implications for Party Wall Surveyors?
1) Be disciplined about jurisdiction
From K Group, the headline is: no “general continuing jurisdiction”.
Practice tips:
• Confirm there is a live dispute “connected with work to which the Act relates”.
• Confirm the correct owners (s.20 “owner” issues matter a lot where titles/leases have changed).
• Confirm proper appointments for this dispute (don’t try to bootstrap from an old award).
2) Treat ex parte as a last resort, and document it tightly
From Patel, ex parte is not a weapon for resolving professional disagreement.
Practice tips:
• Keep a clear paper trail: what was requested, when served, what exactly is the “subject matter”.
• Under s.10(7), if you wait beyond day 10, remember: if the other surveyor responds effectively before you act, your ex parte route may fall away.
• If it’s a surveyor-vs-surveyor disagreement (especially costs), refer to the third surveyor early rather than going ex parte.
3) Build limitation into how you handle damage/compensation claims
From K Group, a compensation award for damage first suffered more than 6 years earlier was treated as time-barred under the Limitation Act analysis.
Practice tips:
• Ask early: “When was the damage first suffered?” and record the date/evidence.
• If it’s historic, be wary of including any compensation sum without legal advice—because it can render the award vulnerable to appeal.
4) Stay in-lane on remedies (don’t drift into court-only territory)
From K Group, surveyors cannot grant injunction-type relief like forcing removal of structures.
Practice tips:
• Frame outcomes as Act-appropriate: regulating the notifiable works, methods, access, safeguards, making good/compensation where valid.
5) Don’t try to “enforce” via fresh awards
K Group is a warning against using later awards as a collection mechanism; enforcement is a court question.
