Search

The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 is an important piece of legislation which adjudicates in the midst of what are often the competing needs of neighbouring parties. Party wall surveyors are charged with the role of facilitating the exercise of the building owner's rights while simultaneously safeguarding the interests of the adjoining owner. The Act confers upon the party wall surveyor the power and jurisdiction to properly discharge this role and laid out within the Act are a set of rules and directions that guide the surveyor as to the execution of that role. Nowhere within the four corners of the Act, however, is the party wall surveyor guided as to how to address the discharging of their role in the throes of a dispute between the parties as to the location of the boundary that separates their properties. The difficulty that arises is that much of the Act is predicated upon the location of the boundary being of settled knowledge or agreement. Indeed, knowledge of where the boundary lies goes in many instances to the heart of the operation of the Act. In his roles as third surveyor, the author is often met with referrals from appointed surveyors with differing views as to how to address a party wall matter in an instance in which there is disagreement between the parties as to the location of the boundary. This paper examines the arguments often put by surveyors in such circumstances, examines the extent of the surveyor's powers in this regard under the Act, considers industry and judicial treatment of the matter, and sets out what is in the author's view the conclusive position. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The topic of security for expenses is a matter that the author is increasingly having to address under referral as third surveyor. This paper briefly examines the roots of the security for expenses provision, noting how the provision has evolved since first introduction within the Metropolitan Building Act 1855 where the provision was less commonly applied; then making its way through the various Acts with subtle but meaningful changes that have resulted in much more common and (in the author's view) over-use of the provision within the current Party Wall etc. Act 1996 (the Act). The paper highlights the lack of parliamentary guidance provided to support the use of the provision, which the paper suggests will have flowed from the limited parliamentary time that was allowed back in 1996 for the hearing of the Bill, which, in the event, caused the Bill to be rushed through Parliament with some rough edges, to say the least. The paper finds that added to the lack of legislative guidance within the current Act is a gulf that is yet to be filled by the usual (but in this case lacking) onslaught of case law that tends to address the unanswered questions posed by parliamentary legislation. The article casts light upon some of the more contentious aspects of the provisions, unpacking those aspects and providing some practical 'how to' guidance to practitioners who have to deal with the matter on a regular basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to measure the performance of a new design of occlusal sensor, the high definition (HD) sensor, and directly compare this sensor to the previous design. This new HD sensor design has increased active recording area by 33%, and decreased inactive recording area by 50% as compared to the previous design (G3). This was accomplished by determining the force reproduction variability for repeated occlusal closures on the same sensor for a sampling of sensors from both designs. Thirty (30) G3 and 30 HD sensors were consistently positioned and loaded 24 times between articulated epoxy casts by a Pneumatic Occlusal Force Simulator. Their force reproduction consistency was measured as an electronic voltage drop across six occlusal contacts that were consistently located on all sensors. The force variability of the two sensor designs was determined by comparing the consistency of the voltage drops across the six occlusal contacts. An analysis of variance was employed to determine the variability of force reproduction over multiple closures across six occlusal contact regions. For five of the six contacts, the G3 sensor mean variances, were significantly larger (p<0.05) than those of the HD sensor. The within sensor variability of the HD sensor was significantly less than that of the G3 sensor. Within the limitations of this study, the HD sensor exhibited less variable force reproduction than the G3 sensor for at least 20 in-laboratory loading cycles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]