Case Summary


Court of Appeal
Current Legislation:
Party Wall etc. Act 1996, s.11(11)
Historic Legislation:
London Building Act 1894, s. 95, s. 99

Stone owned the freehold of 6 Queen Street, London and Hastie owned the leasehold of 7 Queen Street. Prior to the grant of that lease Hastie’s landlord had raised the party wall. Stone later made use of the raised section. The surveyors appointed for those later works made an award requiring Stone to pay the contribution for the cost of using the raised portion of the wall to Hastie, rather than Hastie’s landlord.

Stone did not pay, so Hastie applied to the Court to enforce the award. Stone argued that the award was invalid because the compensation should have been payable to his landlord, who raised the wall, rather than Hastie.


The compensation was not payable to Hastie, but to his landlord.


This can be contrasted with Mason v Fulham Corporation where the right to compensation was transferred to a purchaser of the freehold.