Party Wall Act notices: email is a valid method of service

The Edit

1. The methods of service set out in Section 15(1) of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 (the “Act”) are permissive and not exhaustive.
2. So long as the serving party can demonstrate that the recipient received the notice/document in a legible form, service by email is a valid means of service.
3. Despite the recent Court of Appeal decision, the service provisions at section 15(1) of the Act provide the serving party with a degree of comfort.

The Detail

• In Knight v Goulandris (2018), a third-party surveyor was instructed to assess and quantify the damage caused to Mr Goulandris’ adjoining property following works to Mr Knight’s property.
• Mr Goulandris disputed the third-party surveyor’s award and attempted to appeal the decision.
• Mr Knight argued that Mr Goulandris’ appeal was out of time as the award had been served on Mr Goulandris by email. The County Court disagreed and held that service by email did not constitute good service under Section 15(1) of the Act. Mr Knight appealed.
• Section 15(1) of the Act provides that a notice or other document required to be served under the Act may be served on a person:

o by delivering it to him in person;

o by sending it to him by post at his usual or last-known residence or place of business; or

o in the case of a body corporate, by delivering it to the secretary or clerk of the body corporate at its registered or principal office.

• It was commonly held throughout the industry that the Act did not permit service by email.
• The dispute as to service took place before the introduction of sections 15(1A)-(1C), providing that a notice or other document may be served by email only if the recipient had agreed to receive the notice by email.

The Decision

• The Court of Appeal held that the use of the word “may” in section 15(1) is permissive rather than exhaustive, meaning that the sending party was not restricted to the methods of service set out in Section 15(1).
• Email was therefore considered to be a valid means of service under the Act, irrespective of whether the recipient has agreed to accept service by email or not. As a result, Mr Goulandris’ appeal against the third-party award was issued out of time.

The Impact

• Sending documents by email is quick and cost-effective, but the service provisions set out in the Act provide the serving party with comfort and a degree of certainty.
• If you follow the section 15(1) methods of service, it is for the recipient to prove whether the document was received or not.
• If you use any other service method (i.e. a method not set out in section 15(1) of the Act), the burden to demonstrate that the recipient had received the document in a legible form remains with the sending party.
• Sending documents in accordance with section 15(1), puts you in the best possible position in the event of a dispute as to valid service.