The Court of Appeal in London today backed a ruling forcing a property owner to remove a staircase that infringed on his neighbour’s right to light.
At a hearing today Simon Butler QC, for the owner of 14 Paul’s Row, said that a lower court judge did not have the power to force his client to remove the staircase, and should have ordered a payment of damages to his neighbour in 12/13 Paul’s row instead.
However, the three judges hearing the case dismissed the claim, backing the lower court’s ruling.
The case, known as Ottercroft Limited v Scandia Care, has been watched with interest by planning lawyers interested in the right to light as it is the first time the Court of Appeal has ruled on this specific question.
“The reality of the conclusion in Ottercroft is that it reflects the courts’ willingness to to penalise partners who act in a ‘high-handed manner’, particularly where there is an attempt to ‘steal a march’ on an unwitting neighbour,” said Emma Humphreys, a partner at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP.
She said that the first instance the judge had noted that the defendant had hoped that his development plans wouldn’t be notice by his neighbour as he expected him to object.
“Any developer or other person thinking of following a similar approach to the developer in this case should take note and think again,” she said.
Ottercroft Limited v Scandia Care, Court of Appeal (Laws JL, Tomlinson LJ, Lewison LJ) 6 July 2016