Practical Legal Research Candidate #
FROM: Trainee
TO: Matthew Collingwood-Cooper
SUBJECT: MCC/0287/03 – James and Fiona Metcalfe
DATE: 28/11/2021
Dear Matthew,
I have researched the following issues regarding James and Fiona Metcalfe:
1. The possibility of adjudication with BCL Builders Limited (“BCL”) to recover the costs
of remedial works.
2. Whether a formal notice ought to have been served to Max and Nina for the demolition of
the adjoining wall.
3. Whether James’ destruction of a badger sett 5 years ago could amount to an offence.
I have set out my understanding of the factual situation in the attached report.
Review of research
Regarding the first issue, James and Fiona will have a right to statutory adjudication if they do
not fall under the residential occupier exclusion. If the exclusion does apply, they would need
BCL to agree to adjudicate.
With reference to the second issue, Max and Nina’s oral consent is insufficient. James and Fiona
should have obtained their consent in writing or served their neighbours a formal notice 2
months prior to the demolition of their shared wall.
Concerning the third issue, James will not face legal proceedings for destroying the badger sett.
James falls under an exemption but should have obtained a licence for that exemption to apply.
1
FROM: Trainee
TO: Matthew Collingwood-Cooper
SUBJECT: MCC/0287/03 – James and Fiona Metcalfe
DATE: 28/11/2021
Dear Matthew,
I have researched the following issues regarding James and Fiona Metcalfe:
1. The possibility of adjudication with BCL Builders Limited (“BCL”) to recover the costs
of remedial works.
2. Whether a formal notice ought to have been served to Max and Nina for the demolition of
the adjoining wall.
3. Whether James’ destruction of a badger sett 5 years ago could amount to an offence.
I have set out my understanding of the factual situation in the attached report.
Review of research
Regarding the first issue, James and Fiona will have a right to statutory adjudication if they do
not fall under the residential occupier exclusion. If the exclusion does apply, they would need
BCL to agree to adjudicate.
With reference to the second issue, Max and Nina’s oral consent is insufficient. James and Fiona
should have obtained their consent in writing or served their neighbours a formal notice 2
months prior to the demolition of their shared wall.
Concerning the third issue, James will not face legal proceedings for destroying the badger sett.
James falls under an exemption but should have obtained a licence for that exemption to apply.
1
