A county court decision earlier this year has been welcomed as an indication that judges will follow the Supreme Court’s clear message on the inappropriateness of injunctions in many right to light cases.
Last year, in the nuisance case of Lawrence and another v Coventry (t/a RDC Promotions) and others [2014] UKSC 13; [2014] 1 EGLR 147 – commonly referred to as Coventry v Lawrence – the Supreme Court expressed the view that courts were too willing automatically to grant an injunction where a landowner’s rights were being infringed.
While Coventry v Lawrence was a case relating to noise nuisance, an unreported February decision of the Central London Court suggests that it is shaping judicial attitudes in relation to rights to light cases.
In Scott v Aimiuwu, the owners of a property in Potters Bar built a substantial rear extension during 2012/3 which interfered with the light to four windows in their neighbours’ home. They proceeded with the development despite their neighbours’ objections.
They sought an injunction requiring the extension to be reduced in size by almost 100 square metres, but Recorder Edward Cole refused to grant an injunction and awarded damages of £31,499 instead.
He took the view that an injunction requiring demolition works would be oppressive and punitive, while the interference in light, whilst actionable, was only to secondary accommodation – a garage/workshop, utility room and bathroom – and could be adequately compensated by an award of damages.
He suggested that things might be different if a living room and bedroom were affected, and calculated on the basis of what the parties would reasonably have negotiated to settle the matter at an early stage, rather than as a share of the profits.
David McGuirk, real estate litigation partner at Eversheds said that it is a useful decision that is good news for developers.
He said: “The high profile decision of Coventry v Lawrence last year delivered the clear message that the senior courts felt there was too great a tendency to order injunctions where landowner’s rights are being infringed.
“Whilst Coventry v Lawrence was a case about noise nuisance, practitioners believed that it was very likely to impact on rights to light. Whilst this recent case is an unreported County Court decision, it is a helpful indication that the lower courts will adopt the Coventry v Lawrence principles where rights to light are infringed, which will be welcomed by developers.
“Developers may also take a degree of comfort from the fact that, in this case, the court calculated damages on the basis of what the parties would have negotiated, rather than as a share of developer’s profit.”
