Add a little light to your day

Development Matters

Beaumont Business Centres Limited v Florala Properties Limited [2020] EWHC 550

This is an important case for developers, not because it creates new law but as a stark reminder that there remains a fundamental risk of an injunction for infringing a neighbour's right to light. This case is the first decision since the ruling of the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence (2014) to declare that an injunction requiring demolition of a part of a building was an appropriate remedy for a claim to rights of light. It confirms that once an interference is established, the court has discretion to order an injunction and it is for the defendant to show why the injunction should not be granted.  

The claimant ("Beaumont") was the lessee of an office building in the City of London which it occupied for the purposes of its business; being the provision of high class serviced offices and business services. The defendant ("Florala") carried out works to extend its neighbouring freehold property.  Beaumont claimed the works resulted in a reduction of light to the claimant's property and that this constituted an actionable nuisance.

The judge, Peter Knox QC, found that the reduction in light did result in a reduction in rents Beaumont received for the affected rooms. However difficult it was to quantify that reduction, Beaumont had established that the reduction caused a substantial interference to amount to a nuisance.  This decision was despite the fact that Florala's works had been completed, and the property was being used by an occupier as an apart-hotel.

The court rejected Florala's argument that Beaumont was simply trying to extract a ransom payment, so as to preclude Beaumont from being granted an injunction.

Although strictly a case on rights to light, the case is interesting for developers for a number of reasons but one point stands out: during the hearing, the judge criticised the defendant for its conduct prior to the case reaching court. 

Florala was said to have acted in a "high-handed, or at least unfair and unneighbourly manner". Beaumont had suggested a cut back to the development but Florala made no attempt to negotiate this. It is, therefore, vital for developers and their advisers to carefully consider any rights of light issues prior to infringing any rights (and preferably prior to commencement of construction).  The developer’s behaviour needs to be beyond reproach.

In Brief: decide your strategy; early engagement; consider use of light obstruction notices.

It is understood that Florala have been given leave to appeal.