Search results

The purpose of this paper is to consider the procedures under section 17 of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 (“The Act”) for enforcement proceedings to recover an awarded sum. This paper will demonstrate that the procedure is unclear and confusing to the party wall surveyors, the magistrates, the county court officers and the legal profession who express conflicting views on the appropriate method of enforcement. The intent of this paper is to examine and explain the procedures that will allow the recovery of costs and other contingencies, as a civil debt within the Magistrates’ Court, with a comparison of the more traditional route of the County Court.

The author has reviewed the relevant sections of the statutory acts and the limited publications that discuss and promote various methods of enforcement of actions that have been awarded and are recoverable summarily as a civil debt. Accordingly, the options to enforce payment within the magistrates’ and county courts will be considered, explained, and discussed within this paper.

This paper makes a contribution to the limited existing literature and theoretical interpretation of section 17 of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, to provide a framework for considering the procedures and principles necessary to enforce payment of costs awarded under the Act. The paper makes a comparative analysis of the differences between the two recognised approaches and explains why a particular method (the Magistrates’ Court) will normally be the preferred option.

The paper demonstrates that there is confusion surrounding the appropriate method of enforcement, and provides a structured and detailed explanation of the appropriate method of enforcement.

This paper aims to consider the right created by section 8 of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, which allows an owner of a property to enter on to an adjoining owner's property without their consent, while protecting the adjoining owner's legal rights. It identifies the procedures that an adjoining owner has to prevent unlawful access and to protect themselves from damages arising from the access.

The paper reviews the implementation of that part of the Act dealing with access, informed by the author's professional experience as a party wall surveyor.

While there is an explicit right of access on to an adjoining owner's property, the access is for works “in pursuance of the Act”. If the building owner can satisfy this criterion then the right of access is provided. If not, the access is a trespass and therefore should be dealt with as a tort in common law. The paper identifies the correct processes and factual evidence required to achieve access.

This paper makes a contribution to the limited existing literature and theoretical interpretations of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. It provides a framework for considering the procedures and principles necessary to achieve a right of access, while protecting the adjoining owner rights.

The purpose of this paper is to identify, through an exploratory meta-analysis, which process- and outcome-related antecedents have the strongest relationship to overall team performance. The secondary objective is to create an understanding of the extent to which relative research interest in each construct to date has aligned with its reported effects.

This study uses a random-effects meta-analysis on studies that have measured the relationship between at least one process or outcome factor and overall team performance. The number of studies, effect size and between-study variances are captured and analyzed for each process/outcome factor. Prior literature has explored relationships between various process/outcome factors and overall team performance. This study expands on previous literature by examining a comprehensive set of process/outcome factors and their relative impact on overall team performance.

A meta-analysis of 190 effect sizes extracted from 52 empirical studies over the past two decades (1999–2020) showed the specific process and outcome factors that most strongly contributed to overall team performance were efficiency, schedule and innovation. In addition, only a weak correlation was found between process and outcome factors’ relationships with overall team performance and how often they are studied in the research community.

This study contributes to the body of knowledge on team performance by examining prior research to identify the relevant impact of various process and outcome factors on overall team performance. In addition, this study also assesses the extent to which research interest in these factors has appeared to match their relative impact. Analyzing the relative impact of various process and outcome factors allows researchers and practitioners to better identify methods to create improvement in overall team performance. Based on the findings, prioritizing efficiency, schedule and innovation may promote overall team performance.

The purpose of this paper is to review the scholarship on political skill and political will so that the authors might inspire future work that assesses these constructs individually and in tandem.

The “political skill” and “political will” concepts were introduced about 40 years ago, but they only have been measured and produced empirical results much more recently. Since that time, substantial research results have demonstrated the important roles political skill and political will play in organizational behavior. This paper provides a comprehensive review of this research, draws conclusions from this work and provides a meta-theoretical framework of political skill and political will to guide future work in this area.

Scholarship in this area has developed quite rapidly for political skill, but less so for political will. The authors hope that recent developments in a political will can set the stage for scholars to create a theoretical and empirical balance between these two related constructs.

The authors corral the vast and widespread literature on political skill and will and distill the information for scholars and practitioners alike.