In the recent case of Handstone Investments Limited v Abri Group Limited, the court was asked to decide on an interim injunction to stop the construction of a building that allegedly interfered with the claimant’s right to light. This case provides an interesting look into how courts balance the rights of property owners with broader public interests.
The Background
Handstone Investments Limited, the claimant, argued that the construction of a four-storey building by Abri Group Limited, a housing association, would significantly reduce the natural light to their adjoining property. By the time of the hearing, the construction had already reached the first floor. Handstone was concerned that if the construction continued, it would be difficult to obtain a permanent injunction later.
The Court’s Decision
The judge had to decide whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the interference with the right to light. He concluded that they would be, particularly because Handstone was an investor owner, and the tenant of the affected building did not raise significant objections. The judge referenced a similar case, Midtown Limited v City of London Real Property Company Ltd, where the claimant was primarily interested in the property for financial reasons.
Key Factors Considered
- Adequacy of Damages: The judge determined that any loss in property value could be compensated with damages, making an injunction unnecessary.
- Public Interest: The development was intended to provide affordable housing, which is a significant public benefit.
- Timing of Objections: Planning permission had been granted almost four years before the proceedings, and the claimant’s tenant had not raised substantial objections since the original planning application.
Legal Commentary
The case also touches on the broader legal question of when courts should award damages instead of an injunction. Historically, the rule from Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co. suggested that injunctions should be the default remedy unless the injury was minor and could be compensated with a small payment. However, the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence emphasized that judges should have broader discretion and consider all relevant factors.
Conclusion
The decision in Handstone Investments Limited v Abri Group Limited highlights the court’s approach to balancing private property rights with public benefits. It underscores the importance of considering the adequacy of damages and the broader impact of an injunction on public interest projects, such as affordable housing developments.
This case serves as a reminder that while property rights are important, they must sometimes yield to greater public needs, especially when adequate compensation can be provided.
How can we help?
Simon Waterfield is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in property disputes, rights of way claims, landlord and tenant disputes and commercial disputes.
For more information on the subjects discussed in this article, get in touch with Simon or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us