A long and complicated judgment about a dispute between two commercial buildings in the heart of the City may have a “significant impact” on so-called ‘right to light’ cases, according to legal experts.
Judgment in the case of Beaumont Business Centers v Florala Properties was handed down today by Peter Knox QC, a judge in the Business and Property Courts.
The facts of the case are complicated, but stem from Florala’s decision to increase the height of its building on Moorgate and London Wall by 11.25 metres, affecting the light in Beaumont’s building.
Beaumont is seeking to enforce its right to light while Florala argues that correspondence between them shows that Beaumont “was not genuinely interested in protecting its rights of light… But simply wanted to use them as a means of exacting a “ransom” payment from Florala, the judge said in the ruling.
“Florala argued that where rooms were already badly lit, a small reduction in light shouldn’t amount to a nuisance,” said James Souter, a partner at Charles Russell Speechlys, and an expert in right-to-light issues.
“The judge gave this short shrift and said that whatever the starting position if a development makes the neighbouring property ‘substantially less comfortable and convenient than before’ it would amount to a nuisance,” Souter said.
Importantly, Beaumont has been asking for an injunction against Florala.
“The judge looked closely at the decision of the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence which has been the subject of much comment and discussion,” Souter said.
“He rejected Florala’s case that an injunction should only be granted if they had deliberately breached Beaumont’s rights. It appears that the judge has moved back to the previously accepted position that an interference with a right of light should be dealt with by an injunction save for in exceptional cases where damages provide an adequate remedy.”
The judge ordered that Florala must remove those parts of its property that infringe Beaumont’s rights.
This, according to Souter, is a case that will give lawyers in the field a lot of food for thought.
“It looks like it will have a significant impact on the approach to rights of light. The most important element is the availability of an injunction which has in recent years been the subject of significant debate,” he said.
“An appeal to the Court of Appeal must be inevitable.”
