The case of Handstone Investments Limited (HIL) v Abri Group Limited (AGL) [2024] EWHC 3523 was heard in October 2024 before Mr Justice Trower and shines a light on several key factors that a court will consider when deciding whether to grant an interim injunction seeking to prevent development or whether monetary damages will be deemed to be an appropriate remedy.
The facts of the case are that HIL’s building enjoyed rights of light over AGL’s development site in Broadstone, Dorset. This was established by twenty years of continuous use, also known as acquiring rights of light by ‘prescription’. Once construction of the development site had begun, HIL applied for a prohibitory interim injunction to restrain AGL from continuing to develop the land in breach of their rights to light.
At the time of the judgement, AGL were in the process of building a four-storey building comprising the ground floor plus three further storeys containing thirty-three flats. All these would be used for affordable housing occupied by tenants from the local authority waiting list. Construction work had commenced on 22 January 2024.
Mr Justice Trower acknowledged that the completion of the development would give rise to a ‘likely and lasting infringement’ of HIL’s rights to light. Nevertheless, Mr Justice Trower refused to grant the prohibitory interim injunction on the basis that damages were deemed to be an adequate remedy.
The key principles in this decision can be summarised as follows:
- HIL owned the freehold of their building, and it was let to occupational tenants. Therefore, HIL’s interest in the building was based on earning rental income. It was noted in the judgement that HIL would continue to receive the rent to which it is entitled from the property and ultimately that any diminution of the value of the building would be compensable in damages.To emphasise this point, Mr Justice Trower noted that there had been no complaint by the occupational tenants to the development works since the grant of the original planning permission four years earlier.
- The public interest in the development works was recognised, given that the construction was to provide affordable housing to persons on the local authority waiting list.
- However, arguably the most interesting part of Mr Justice Trower’s decision is his explanation that the claim had been brought too late, given that planning permission for the development had been granted several years earlier (in 2020), and the actual construction phase was in progress by the time that an application for the prohibitory interim injunction was made. It was emphasised that no attempt had been made by the claimant before commencement of the works to resolve the issue with the developer. This clearly emphasises the need for adjoining owners to act swiftly if they consider that their rights to light are to be infringed by a proposed development scheme.
Whilst this case outlines the position for interim injunctions, the judgement suggests that these criteria may not equally apply to a final injunction.
Ultimately, this case emphasises that a court will consider whether monetary damages will be an appropriate remedy as part of any application seeking a prohibitory interim injunction to prevent development. A key takeaway is that adjoining owners who consider that a proposed development infringes their rights to light will need to act swiftly and prior to any construction phase to stand the best chance to obtain an injunction and to retain rights to light.
In light of the above, it is particularly interesting to note that a couple living in a £1million riverside apartment at Bankside Lofts by the River Thames has, in March 2025, requested that Mr Justice Fancourt order a developer to modify its plans for the construction of several tower blocks in the area.. Their request is based on concerns about the loss of natural light to their apartment, which has recently been affected by the construction of a new 19-storey office building. The couple have told the court that if there is no other option, they will ask the court to order the demolition of the office block, and the hearing continues. It would appear from Handstone Investments Limited v Abri Group Limited and other existing case law on this subject that obtaining an injunction to protect one’s right to light is not necessarily easy to achieve. We will be following this case with interest to see whether the court will indeed order the developer to adjust its future construction plans to consider the loss of light caused by its existing tower block.
