Overview
Kaye v Lawrence is a key case on security for expenses under section 12 of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.
It challenges the common but wrong assumption that security only matters where a building owner is physically working on the adjoining owner's land.
What happened
A building owner proposed a basement involving contiguous piling in granular soils. There were concerns about vibration, de-watering and possible instability to the adjoining owner's property.
The third surveyor decided that security for expenses was not available because the works were on the building owner's land. That decision was appealed.
The decision
The court held that section 12 can apply to works carried out in the exercise of rights under the Act, including section 6 excavation works.
In other words, security can be relevant even where the excavation is on the building owner's own land.
Why it matters
On higher-risk excavations, the adjoining owner may be entitled to seek security before the works begin.
The issue is not simply where the builder stands. The issue is whether the works are being carried out using rights under the Act and whether credible risk justifies security.
Practical lesson
Adjoining owners should raise security early where there is real risk.
Building owners should plan for it on basement, piling and deep-excavation projects rather than treating it as a surprise demand.