Property Disputes analysis: This case involved a Party Wall etc Act 1996 (PWA 1996) award that had been imposed on a Building Owner by the Adjoining Owner, in circumstances where the Building Owner had not served any notice under the Act or engaged in the dispute resolution process. The Court of Appeal held that an Adjoining Owner was unable to unilaterally invoke the Act in this way and that the only trigger to be able to use PWA 1996 was by the service of a notice by the Building Owner on the Adjoining Owner. The case sets out the ambit of PWA 1996 and makes it clear that it is not a remedy available to a disgruntled Adjoining Owner when the Building Owner has not invoked PWA 1996. In those circumstances, if an Adjoining Owner has a complaint about boundary works, they must seek an injunction. Written by Michael Paget, barrister at Cornerstone Barristers and Counsel for the respondent.

Property Disputes analysis: This case involved a Party Wall etc Act 1996 (PWA 1996) award that had been imposed on a building owner by an adjoining owner. The court held that an adjoining owner cannot do this. There is one trigger to be able to use PWA 1996 and that is the service of a notice by a building owner on an adjoining owner. An adjoining owner cannot by-pass the trigger; they cannot unilaterally invoke PWA 1996; surveyors cannot be appointed under PWA 1996 and no valid award can be made. The court held that PWA 1996 does not cover all disputes between adjoining landowners but only those which have been properly defined under the procedures of PWA 1996. Consequently, any award was limited to such disputes. The case sets out the ambit of PWA 1996 and makes it clear that PWA 1996 is not a remedy available to a disgruntled adjoining owner when the building owner has not invoked PWA 1996. In those circumstances if an adjoining owner has a complaint about boundary works they need to seek an injunction. Written by Michael Paget, barrister at Cornerstone Barristers and counsel for the respondent.

Pensions analysis: The Pensions Ombudsman has rejected a complaint about information given on early retirement terms. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

Pensions analysis: The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman has rejected a complaint about the application of a late retirement factor and a failure to warn on the consequences of opting out of a pension scheme. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

Employment analysis: Where a claimant withdraws a claim it comes to an end under Rule 51 of the ET Rules 2013 and cannot be revived. An employment tribunal must issue a dismissal judgment following withdrawal unless one of the exceptions at paragraphs (a) and (b) of Rule 52 apply. There is no obligation on the part of the tribunal to invite representations from the parties before dismissing a withdrawn claim. However, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, they may exercise their discretion to do so, according to the EAT.

Arbitration analysis: The Commercial Court upheld a section 67 challenge under the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and set aside an ICC tribunal’s partial award on jurisdiction. Bryan J held that the tribunal had impermissibly adopted a ‘pick and mix’ approach to conflicting arbitration clauses in a suite of contractual documents, wrongly overriding the agreed order of precedence. The case is a rare example of a successful jurisdictional challenge and reinforces the limits of arbitral discretion when construing composite contracts. The judgment also clarifies the approach under AA 1996, s 73, holding that a party will not lose its right to object to jurisdiction where timely and consistent protest is maintained. Finally, the court refused relief from sanctions for late acknowledgment of service—emphasising the seriousness of procedural defaults in arbitration claims, though the defendant was permitted to participate de bene esse. This is a valuable judgment for practitioners navigating jurisdictional objections in composite contract settings and reinforces the English courts’ commitment to procedural discipline in arbitration claims. Written by Can Yeğinsu, barrister at 3 Verulam Buildings.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In this conjoined appeal, the Court of Appeal considered whether the police held a duty of care to protect Ms Woodcock and CJ from harm caused by a third party; and whether the police’s investigative duty, pursuant to Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, can arise before the claimant has suffered ill treatment at the hands of a third party. This decision represents the first occasion upon which the Court of Appeal has been asked to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police and has provided some important points of practical application to practitioners in this area. Written by Jennie Oborne, barrister at Deka Chambers.

Local Government analysis: This is an important decision as to the scope of local authorities’ powers. Section 107D of the Housing Act 1985 (HA 1985) creates a procedure enabling an authority to recover possession on a mandatory basis after the expiry of a flexible tenancy. One step in that procedure involves the authority giving the tenant not less than six months’ notice in writing that it does not propose to grant another tenancy on the expiry of the flexible tenancy. The tenant can request a review of the authority’s decision but HA 1985, s 107E(1) provides that such a request must be made within 21 days. The Court of Appeal held that the authority has no power to extend the time for requesting a review under HA 1985, s 107E(1). Although the case concerned the flexible tenancy regime, as discussed below, the court’s reasoning is likely to apply in other contexts. Written by Anneli Robins (who appeared for the appellant) and Ian Peacock, barristers at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In Bassey v Whittaker, Mr Justice Cavanagh held that, absent agreement between the parties, a significant development in the litigation is a necessary precondition to revising an approved or agreed costs budget under CPR 3.15A. The court upheld the district judge’s evaluative conclusion that further expert work, changes arising from rehabilitation and accommodation, trial slippage and additional disclosure were known or reasonably foreseeable and therefore did not constitute significant developments. The decision reinforces the relatively high threshold for budget revision and warns against ‘constant tinkering’ with approved budgets. Practitioners should ensure that applications identify genuinely unanticipated developments and satisfy CPR 3.15A. Whether parties may agree revisions without a significant development remains unresolved. Produced in partnership with David Juckes, barrister at Hailsham Chambers.

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore High Court refused enforcement of a China-seated CIETAC emergency arbitrator’s interim award because the arbitrator lacked power to grant the relief. Although an emergency arbitrator’s decision could constitute an enforceable ‘arbitral award’ under the International Arbitration Act 1994, the applicable lex arbitri, Chinese law, did not confer power to order the relevant interim measure and the parties had not separately agreed to confer it. The decision emphasises that institutional rules cannot themselves supply arbitral powers where their wording makes those powers contingent on applicable law or party agreement. Practitioners should therefore test the legal source of an emergency arbitrator’s powers when selecting the seat, drafting arbitration agreements and planning cross-border interim-relief and enforcement strategies. Produced in partnership with Hazel Tang of Hui Zhong Law Firm.

Personal Injury analysis: In Al-Iqra (by his litigation friend) v DSG Retail Ltd, the judge found that a faulty heater had caused a house fire in which two children sustained serious and life-changing injuries. Karl De-Loyde, senior serious injury solicitor at Thompsons Solicitors, comments on the case and its implications.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Mr Justice Fancourt has refused to vacate the trial of 42 phone hacking claims in early 2025 in order instead to have a preliminary trial of a limitation issue in a handful of those claims. The advantages of having the preliminary issue determined in those claims was outweighed by the costs associated with the loss of the trial listing. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.