Covid-19 Update: The latest effects of coronavirus on your legal rights and our service.

Complete the form below to ask us a question or make an enquiry. We’ll get back to you via phone or email as soon as possible.

Insights

Rights of light: building owner entitled to injunction even though development was complete

Posted on 06th April 2020 in Affordable Housing

Posted by

Stephen Burtchaell

Partner and Solicitor
Rights of light: building owner entitled to injunction even though development was complete

Beaumont Business Centres Ltd v Florala Properties Ltd [2020]

The Claimant (‘Beaumont’) was the lessee of an office building in the City of London which it occupied for the purposes of its business, the provision of high class serviced offices and business services. Beaumont sought an injunction, alternatively damages, against the defendant, the freehold owner of the adjacent building. Beaumont claimed that the defendant’s extension of its building had interfered with its rights to light.

The affected part of Beaumont’s building was relatively poorly lit before the infringement, and, like many offices, electric lighting was used. The defendant argued that where a room is already badly lit, making it darker still is not an actionable nuisance. It also argued that an interference which translated to only a small amount of loss of rental or capital value should not be regarded as substantial, even though the loss is more than de minimis.

The court rejected this argument. It held that to establish a claim in nuisance Beaumont needed to prove that the reduction in light to its premises had made them substantially less comfortable than before. In practice this meant that it must show that by virtue of the light reduction it was likely to suffer a loss of rental income over the course of its lease which was more than de minimis. It was therefore irrelevant whether the premises were well lit before the reduction.

 

Decision

  1. It was accepted that the reduction in light had caused, at least to some extent, a reduction in Beaumont’s rents. Beaumont had therefore established that the reduction in light had caused a substantial interference with its rights so as to amount to a nuisance.
  2. The court rejected Florala’s argument that an injunction should not be granted because Beaumont’s purpose throughout had simply been to extract a ransom payment from Florala and that it did not have a genuine concern about the interference with its light. Beaumont was a high-end luxury serviced office provider and the market it was operating in was becoming increasingly more competitive. Every little shift in advantage or disadvantage mattered. It was understandable therefore that Beaumont should be concerned that it was not prejudiced by the reduction in light.
  3. It would be appropriate to grant an injunction ordering the defendant to cut back its development. The premises were, however, occupied by a tenant, who had been granted a long lease after the claimant had first complained about the infringement, but who was not a party to the proceedings. Judgment was accordingly given for Beaumont in the form of a declaration that, as against the defendant, Beaumont was entitled to an injunction and that if, so advised, it might join the tenant to the proceedings to seek an injunction. Failing that, Beaumont would be entitled to damages in lieu of an injunction in the sum of £350,000.

 

This was the first decision since the ruling of the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence to declare that an injunction requiring demolition of an interfering part of a building was an appropriate remedy in a rights of light case.

Our Affordable Housing team have over 25 years experience in this sector, forming close working relationships with their housing clients. To find out more about the areas they advise on and their bespoke services please visit their hub page or contact a member of the team.

Contact the team 

Company & Industry

Related Insights

Insights

Private management of Affordable Rented Housing

Posted on 05th January 2022 in Affordable Housing

In a recent planning appeal relating to the proposed development of 115 privately rented dwellings the Inspector found that the private management of the affordable units rather than management by a Registered Provider did not conflict with the development plan and so allowed the appeal. 

Posted by

Alex McKerron

Chartered Legal Executive
Insights

Should you extend your shared ownership lease now or wait?

Posted on 28th October 2021 in Affordable Housing

Government proposals to reform the shared ownership model include all new leases being granted for 990 years instead of the current 99 or 125 years.

Posted by

Megan Lindsay-Bush

Solicitor