A High Court decision against granting interim injunctions in relation to rights of light

Eleanor Bradshaw, paralegal and Amy Wagg, associate solicitor, in our land and property dispute resolution team, look at the decision in the Handston Investments Ltd v Abri Group Ltd case, which provided a judgment from the High Court against granting an interim injunction on a development when a right of light dispute had arisen.

Although the judgment did lack clarification regarding the law around rights of light, the decision did cover important considerations when assessing whether damages are sufficient in remedying the dispute or if an interim injunction should be given.

Background

Abri Group Ltd, a charitable housing association led a project to build a block of social housing flats. The adjoining property was a commercial office building, owned by Handston Investment Ltd, an investor-focussed entity, that owned the property since its construction in 2002.

Handston had established rights of light by prescription due to the 20 years of continuous use. Such rights were gained over time through uninterrupted access to natural light through the windows. Abri applied for planning permission for the development in 2020 and began works in January 2024 having not received any objections.

Handston objected to the construction when it began to affect the above rights, stating they wished to preserve the passage of light. Using the Waldram Method, which is a standard approach for measuring light loss, it was agreed that the development would infringe Handston’s easements and there would be losses to the ground and first floor meaning the works would amount to an infringement.

As a result, Handston sought an interim injunction to stop the development, and they offered a cross-undertaking in damages to cover Abri’s losses if the injunction was later found to be unjustified. Abri declined to stop the works which led to the dispute.

Considerations

The Judge acknowledged that the completion of the development would give rise to a likely and lasting infringement of Hanston’s right to light, however refused to grant the injunction on the basis that damages were deemed to be an adequate remedy.

Handston argued that damages would not be an adequate remedy as they were protecting a property right and claimed if they were not granted an interim injunction, by the time the matter got to trial, the development would be more advanced and thus it would be unlikely that the Court would order that the development needed to be redesigned or deconstructed.

Abri argued that damages would be an adequate remedy as Handston was the freehold owner of the building and did not occupy the property themselves and therefore their interests were purely monetary dependant on the collection of rent from their tenants.

It was argued that as the tenants of the property hadn’t objected to the planning permission and the issue of the loss of light wasn’t going to deter them from no longer wanting to rent the space.

Therefore, inferring Handston weren’t likely to suffer a loss of any money from rent as the whole of the commercial building was fully occupied and was likely to continue to be so.

Decision

The Judge noted regarding the adequacy of damages in Midtown Ltd -v- City of London Real Property Co Ltd, the investor of the property with the potential right of light infringement, only had financial interest in the property.

It was decided that as the property’s value had diminished and as this was a calculatable loss, damages were sufficient in compensating the investor.

The Judge also significantly noted that Handston was the investor owner of the property and their interests in the property were less for arguing the property right, and more for the potential loss of rent they may suffer.

The Judge found that the potential detriment to Abri outweighed the impact the development would have on Handston as a delay to the development would cost approximately £40,000 per week which would affect the need to build much needed-social housing.

It was further argued by Abri that although a cross-undertaking was offered, financial compensation would not fully address the issues faced by delaying homes for families.

After the Judge’s decision to dismiss the application for an interim injunction on the development, Handston reached to a settlement with Abri rather than taking the dispute for trial to ask for a permanent injunction.

Conclusion

 This decision from the High Court is a positive for developers as although using the Waldram Method to calculate loss of light amounted to an infringement on the property right, other factors including timing of the application and the owners’ specific interest in the property proved to be important considerations, outweighing the potential infringement.

The judgment didn’t provide comment on the effectiveness of the methods used in assessing rights of light or answer any questions on the infringement of the property right.

For more information or support on this topic, please contact our land and property dispute resolution team or call us on 01772 258 321.