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.
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.