Rights to Light: Court favours damages over injunction

Background

In Cooper v Ludgate House & Powell v Ludgate House, the Claimants are residents of Bankside Lofts, a residential development close to the Tate Modern Gallery in London. The Defendant owned a development site called Bankside Yards, directly to the west of the Claimants' homes. Part of that development was a 19 storey office block called Arbor building, which began its construction in 2019. 
At that time, the Defendant made pre-emptive offers to the Claimants to compensate them for the injury to their right to light relating to the development. The Claimants did not accept that offer. The Defendant subsequently requested that the Council put in place protections under section 203 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 ("the s203 resolution").

The s203 resolution did not extend to the Arbor building because its construction was already substantially complete. 
When faced with the loss of natural light to their homes, the Claimants brought claims for the demolition of the Arbor building, or alternatively damages.

Judgment was handed down on 8 July 2025

Key findings

1. Appropriate Comparison 

A central issue, was determining what light should be included, whether it is the light of the whole development (including the part protected by the s203 resolution), or indeed whether it was just the light from the Arbor building.

The Court held that because the Claimants could not in practice defend the light over the rest of Bankside Yards, it should not be taken into account,

The complex issue required the Court to look at the leading case of Colls v Home and Colonial Stores [1904] AC 179 which confirmed that the owner of a right to light does not necessarily have a right to all the light serving their property, only sufficient light for the ordinary uses of mankind.

2. Appropriate Measurement Method 

The judgment has reaffirmed that the traditional Waldram method for measuring interference with a right to light is still the agreed standard (in this case at least). Newer methods put forward by the Defendants did not result in significant differences and as such, the Waldram method was preferred. It was noted as being "an objective, century-old standard".

3. Remedy

The court rejected the claimants’ claim for an injunction, however it accepted that the Claimants were deserving of substantive relief in the form of damages.  The Court considered damages to be a suitable remedy in the circumstances particularly when considering that a demolition order would be wasteful, disruptive and not in the public interest.  

This is notwithstanding that any demolition order would be "futile" in the circumstances because it's possible that permission will be sought for a similar development at a later date - but this time protected by a s203 resolution. 

The court awarded negotiating damages, which is the amount the Claimants would have hypothetically agreed as a release fee for their rights, prior to the construction of the Arbor building.

The Court recognised that a Defendant should not be held to ransom and that the damages awarded should be calculated on the apportioned value of the increase in the development's vale. The claimants were awarded £350,000 and £500,000 respectively.
Whilst this was technically a 'win' for the Claimants, it is likely that the Defendant is significantly relieved given the costs involved had the Court granted an injunction requiring the demolition, or at least cutting back, of the Arbor building.

For more information on this case or the issues arising, please contact Joe Hedges in our Property Litigation Team.

For more information or advice, please contact Joe Hedges in our Property Litigation team.