Overview
Dust v Marioni, Greenaway and MacNulty is one of the best-known party wall fee cases. It is regularly cited because it makes a simple point: fees must be proportionate.
Party wall surveyors should not turn modest matters into expensive exercises.
What happened
Mr Dust claimed more than £6,000 in fees for relatively modest party wall works involving steel beams. Notices had not been served before works started and cracks were alleged.
He also warned adjoining owners that they might have to pay any shortfall.
The outcome
The third surveyor awarded a much lower sum of £950 plus VAT. The judge criticised the loss of proportion, famously comparing the approach to making a three-course banquet out of something that should have been a snack.
Some recovery was still allowed, but the claimed fees were substantially reduced.
Why it matters
The case is a powerful reminder that: - party wall fees must be reasonable; - surveyors should keep work proportionate; - simple matters should not be over-lawyered; - work outside the Act should not be charged through the party wall process; - aggressive fee positions can damage credibility.
Practical lesson
Both owners should be wary of surveyors who create unnecessary work. A detailed timesheet is helpful, but a timesheet does not automatically make a fee reasonable.