Court of Appeal grants permission to appeal the Shah v Kyson & Power decision

Lee Kyson, as a litigant in person has been granted by the Court of Appeal to appeal the decision of Eyres J in the Shah v Kyson & Power case,

The case was heard at County Court level and the decision of HHJ Parfitt was appealed to the Queens Bench division of the High Court. The appeal was unsuccessful so Lee sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal which was granted. The Court of Appeal will only grant permission to appeal if they believe there is a real prospect of success and/or it is in the public interest.

High Court decision erroneous? Lee believes it was.

Building owner refuses to acknowledge Party Wall etc. Act 1996

Lee Kyson was contacted by the adjoining owner (AO), in February  2016, as while she was away the neighbouring building owner (BO) had carried out notifiable building works without serving notice and causing damage and trespass of foundations  inter alia to the AO's property.

Having been appointed to act on behalf of the AO, Lee contacted the BO requesting that they appoint a surveyor under section 10(4)b of the 'Act', also offering to act as agreed surveyor.

The BO promptly instructed a solicitor. On expiration of the 10 day notice period Lee sought to appoint a surveyor to act on behalf of the BO. Despite having spoken to several surveyors they did not wish to accept the appointment as it was the AO's surveyor making the appointment. Finally a surveyor accepted the appointment.

This led to a protracted bout of correspondence between the parties. An award was finally served in August 2016 dealing with the damage caused by the BO, compensation to the AO, surveyors fees, legal costs, Arboriculterist's fees....  total £17,000.

Despite continual threats the 'Award' never was appealed.