Rights to light and injunctions

The Court of Appeal has imposed an injunction against a developer in a right to lights case. Jennifer Chappell reports.

An injunction was recently granted against a developer requiring it to take down an external staircase because it had breached a neighbouring property’s right to light, even though the effect of the interference was valued at only £886.00.

Facts

A developer carried out a small mixed use development of a ground floor café with flats above and including a fire escape. The existing wooden staircase was replaced by a new metal fire escape stairway as part of the development.

The adjoining property restaurant owner had complained in advance that the new metal staircase would breach its rights of light. The developer had given all sorts of assurances to the restaurant owner before commencing works that it would not interfere with rights to light by changing the fire escape, but went ahead and built the offending staircase during a time when it knew the restaurant owner would be away.

In the county court, an injunction was granted requiring removal of the metal staircase. However, the developer appealed stating that the county court should have awarded damages rather than an injunction for such a minor breach.

Appeal

In Scandia Care Limited v Ottercroft Limited (Unreported 6 July 2016) the Court of Appeal upheld the county court’s grant of an injunction because the developer, acting through one of its directors, had behaved in such a “high-handed and un-neighbourly” manner. He was aware that the new metal staircase would breach the neighbour’s rights to light but went ahead anyway, despite having given an undertaking not to do so.

Lord Justice Lewison took the decision to injunct as he felt it was necessary not only to give justice to the neighbouring restaurant, but to serve as a warning to others. This approach demonstrates the recent approach taken in Coventry v Lawrence [2014] where the Supreme Court showed the court has a discretion to grant an injunction or damages depending on the individual facts of the case.

The judges in Coventry v Lawrence recommended that the courts exercise discretion when making a decision and recommended using a more flexible approach than perhaps had been taken in the past. Whatever approach is taken, this recent case is a warning to developers to pay heed to concerns raised by neighbouring property owners about rights to light and to use impeccable behaviour when handling these concerns.

Jennifer Chappell is a Senior Associate at Bircham Dyson Bell. She can be contacted on 020 7783 3719 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. This article first appeared in the firm's Real Estate Blog.