如果您是房主，并计划扩建房屋、改造阁楼，或在共享墙或物业边界附近进行任何建筑施工，那么请不要忽视《1996年共墙法案》（Party Wall Act 1996）。邻居没有回应，并不意味着您已经自动获得共墙协议或施工许可。
了解该法案不仅可以让您合法施工，还能帮助您维护良好的邻里关系，避免高额的法律纠纷。法案明确了双方的责任和权利，并提供了正式机制来解决可能出现的争议。
什么是共墙
共墙主要有两种情况：
如果墙体位于两处或多处物业的边界上，并且符合以下条件，就属于共墙：
- 墙体是某栋建筑的一部分；
- 墙体将两栋或多栋建筑隔开；
- 墙体是共用围栏墙（不包括木栅栏或绿篱）。
即使墙体完全建在一位业主的土地上，但双方业主都用它来分隔建筑，也属于共墙，例如一位业主在现有墙体上进行施工。
需要注意的是，只有承担分隔或共享功能的部分才算“共墙”。此外，还有共用结构，如公寓之间的墙体和楼板。
什么时候需要共墙协议？
并非所有对共墙的施工都需要协议。例如，轻微施工如在墙内钻孔安装橱柜或搁板通常不需要。
但如果您计划在共墙附近或在共墙上进行施工，就必须获得共墙协议。
常见需要共墙协议的施工包括：
- 改动半独立或联排房屋的共墙；
- 公寓间的共用结构施工（如楼板）；
- 花园边界墙改动；
- 距离共墙 3–6 米范围内的挖掘或基础加固；
- 阁楼改造涉及共墙切割；
- 在共墙中加入防潮层；
- 增厚或加高共墙；
- 在共墙上增加二层建筑；
- 新建墙体与共墙相连或依附共墙。
如何操作？
您需要在施工前，向邻居发送正式的 共墙通知（Party Wall Notice），并获得书面同意。
房主负责发送通知。建议通知中包括：
- 施工内容及细节；
- 施工开始日期；
- 施工可能涉及邻居物业的出入要求；
- 联系方式。
邻居不回应，是否视为同意？
答案是否定的。
在通知送达后，邻居可以：
- 同意施工；
- 拒绝施工；
- 发出反通知。
如果邻居未回应，也不等于同意。通知送达14天后仍未得到回复，就视为存在争议。
此时，您仍可以尝试与邻居沟通争取同意。他们可能提出反通知，涉及施工费用、限制或条件。
如果无法达成协议，双方可以聘请“共墙测量师”（可共同或各自聘请），由测量师制定“共墙裁定”（Party Wall Award），明确施工细节及费用承担。如对裁定不满意，可向当地法院提出上诉。
即便已有协议，房主仍需负责施工中可能造成的损坏修复。建议在施工前拍照留证，避免后续纠纷。
最后需要强调，该法案不改变任何墙体的所有权，也不改变物业边界，不能用于解决边界争议。
如果您对于文章内容，或者其他英国法律方面，有任何疑问，都欢迎进一步咨询丽莎律师行。
任何英国税务方面的问题，也可以联系咨询丽莎会计行。
觉得丽莎的文章不错？请不要吝于点赞和转发！您的支持是丽莎继续前进的动力，我们将尽力为莎粉们提供最新最全的实用信息。
> 丽莎律师行 —— 最具国际化视野的英国华人律师行，专精于商业、房产、移民、家庭和诉讼法。<
丽莎律师行联络邮箱：info@lisaslaw.co.uk
联络电话：020 7928 0276
联络微信号：lisaslaw007
扫一扫，《丽莎知道》微信公众号：
![Two recent immigration tribunal decisions have highlighted important points of principle in UK immigration law: the requirement for procedural fairness in decision-making and the legal distinction between a grant of leave and the administrative issuance of a Biometric Residence Permit (BRP).
Both cases demonstrate the need for applicants and their representatives to be vigilant in challenging decisions where the Home Office may have acted outside established legal boundaries.
Namecard for article - Angel Wan in English
Procedural Fairness in Hong Kong BN(O) Applications
In R (KW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, JR-2024-LON-002169, the Upper Tribunal considered a refusal under the Hong Kong British National (Overseas) route. The applicant, a Chinese national from Hong Kong, had been refused on the basis of a previous conviction. The Home Office gave decisive weight to a Hong Kong Court of Appeal judgment it had located independently online, without putting this material to the applicant for comment.
The Tribunal found this to be a clear breach of procedural fairness, observing that the applicant had effectively been “ambushed” by evidence not disclosed to them.
While the Court of Appeal’s decision in Balajigari v Home Secretary [2019] EWCA Civ 673 was not directly applicable, it was considered a useful authority on fairness in immigration decision-making. The refusal was therefore quashed, and the case must now be reconsidered by the Home Office.
This judgment reinforces that applicants must be given an opportunity to respond to any evidence relied upon by decision-makers. Failure to do so will amount to procedural unfairness, providing strong grounds for judicial review.
The Legal Status of Biometric Residence Permits
The second case, Guerrero (s104(4A); statutory abandonment; right of appeal) [2025] UKUT 00276 (IAC), concerned an asylum seeker who received a refusal decision but was subsequently issued with a BRP stating “Refugee leave to remain.”
The First-tier Tribunal initially ruled that the BRP constituted a grant of leave, thereby treating the pending asylum appeal as abandoned under section 104(4A) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
On appeal, the Upper Tribunal clarified the legal position. A BRP does not in itself grant leave to remain, it is an administrative document that evidences an earlier grant of leave.
Where a BRP is issued in error, no grant of leave arises, and an appeal cannot be deemed abandoned.
The Tribunal also confirmed that decisions to treat appeals as abandoned under section 104(4A) are not “excluded decisions,” and therefore fall within the Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review.
The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was set aside, and the case will be re-heard.
This decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between the substantive grant of leave and the administrative issuance of a BRP. Mistaken issuance of documents cannot override statutory rights of appeal.
Conclusion
Both cases serve as reminders of the importance of legal safeguards in the immigration system when it comes to immigration tribunal decisions. The KW case highlights that applicants must be given a fair opportunity to respond to evidence before adverse decisions are made. The Guerrero case confirms that a BRP is not determinative of immigration status and cannot substitute for an actual grant of leave.
These judgments illustrate the value of expert legal representation in holding the Home Office to account where decision-making falls short of the standards required by law.](https://lisaslaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/AdobeStock_284883829-scaled.jpeg "Gold coin Stack On the table save money Taking care of money - Lisa's Law Solicitors")
