Navigating the Shadows of Rights of Light Injunctions

The case of Handston Investments Ltd v Abri Group Limited offers valuable insights into how courts approach interim injunction applications in the context of rights of light. This blog delves into the principles and factors that shape these decisions, providing essential guidance for developers.

Background

The Defendant, a not-for-profit housing association, embarked on developing land adjacent to the Claimant's office block, which had acquired rights of light through over 20 years of uninterrupted use. The development was a block of 33 flats and aimed to provide much-needed public housing, presenting a clear public benefit. The Claimant, Handston Investments Ltd, was a commercial landlord who did not occupy any part of the office block. Their tenant had no objections to the development. However, the completed project would significantly infringe the Claimant's rights of light and so they applied for an interim injunction to halt further progress.

The court had to determine whether to grant an interim injunction or whether damages would suffice as a remedy until the application for a final injunction was considered. Mr Justice Towers ruled against granting the interim injunction.

Key Points from the Judgment

1. Commercial Party Considerations

The court applied the principle from Midtown Ltd. v City of London Real Property Co. Ltd. [2005], emphasizing that a commercial landlord primarily interested in the property's financial returns is more likely to find damages an adequate remedy. This perspective significantly influenced the court's decision.

2. Undertakings and Construction Progress

A crucial factor was whether ongoing construction would prejudice the Claimant's position at the substantive trial. The court acknowledged that continued construction could complicate matters, especially if it necessitated dismantling parts of the building. However, the Defendant's offer to provide an undertaking not to rely on the continued works during the interim period alleviated these concerns, proving to be a strategic move. It was also in the Defendant's favour that there would be only a short period before an expedited hearing to consider the application for a final injunction.

3. Public Benefit

The development's aim to provide public housing added weight to the Defendant's argument. While public benefit is not a decisive factor, it can bolster the case against an injunction. The court recognised the importance of balancing public interest with individual property rights.

4. Delay in Asserting Rights

The court noted the significant delay in the Claimant's application, as the development had planning permission since 2020. This delay weakened the Claimant's position, serving as a reminder for potential claimants to act promptly in asserting their rights.

Guidance for Developers

This judgment sheds light on the nuanced approach court takes in rights of light cases, particularly when considering interim injunctions. For developers, it underscores the importance of strategic planning, prompt actions, and understanding the interplay between public benefit and individual rights. Each case is unique, and the specific facts will always play a crucial role in the court's decision-making process.

Of course, matters would be much simpler if our proposed tweaks to the law of rights of light were adopted, but for now, the Rights of Light Protocol should be an early port of call. By staying informed and prepared, developers can navigate the complexities of rights of light disputes more effectively, ensuring their projects proceed with minimal legal hurdles.