Knight v Goulandris

Section 15(1) of the Party Wall etc Act 1996 is permissive. Its stated methods are primary methods of service, rather than an exhaustive code. A party using another method must prove that the intended recipient received the document in a legible form, but actual receipt may constitute valid service.

The word “alternatively” in section 15(2) adds a further primary method for service on an owner. It does not restrict service to the methods expressly stated. Professional practice, governmental views and a later amendment cannot determine the construction of the Act.

The parties were neighbours. Building works undertaken at the appellant’s property caused damage to the respondent’s property. A third surveyor made an award under the Party Wall etc Act 1996.

The respondent appealed the award to the Central London County Court. The appellant contended that the appeal was outside the 14-day period in section 10(17), because the respondent had received the award by e-mail from his surveyor before issuing the appeal.

HH Judge Bailey held that e-mail was not good service under section 15. The appellant appealed that preliminary ruling. The central issue was whether section 15 exhaustively prescribed the permissible methods of service.

1. Appeal allowed. Patten LJ, with whom Hamblen and Henderson LJJ agreed, held that the judge had erred in treating section 15 of the Party Wall etc Act 1996 as an exhaustive code.
2. The word “may” in section 15(1) was permissive. The listed methods were primary methods which enabled the serving party to establish service without proving actual receipt. They did not exclude other methods which satisfied the common-law requirement of receipt.
3. Where service occurs outside the stated methods, the serving party bears the burden of proving that the recipient received the relevant document in a legible form. On the facts, the respondent accessed and read the e-mailed award. That was capable of constituting effective service for the purpose of the statutory appeal period.
4. Section 15(2), which permitted an owner to be served “alternatively” by delivery at the premises, merely provided an additional primary method. It did not indicate that section 15(1) was exhaustive.
5. The prevailing understanding of the surveying profession, the Government’s impact assessment, and the subsequent electronic-communications amendment could not govern the Act’s construction. The Court expressed no view on the validity or effect of the later amendment, or on the separate hard-copy argument that the respondent had abandoned.
6. It was unnecessary to decide whether the respondent had waived the protection of section 10(17).

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appellant’s appeal in [2018] EWCA Civ 237, holding that e-mail service was not excluded by section 15 of the Party Wall etc Act 1996.
• County Court at Central London (Technology and Construction Court): HH Judge Bailey determined a preliminary issue on 26 May 2016 and held that service of the third surveyor’s award by e-mail was not good service under section 15.