Compensation for Loss of Light

Following a recent case in which a dispute regarding a property owner’s right to light was unexpectedly dealt with by the granting of an injunction against a developer, a more recent case has offered guidance on how much compensation might be payable by a developer, who takes the light of another property, in the more normal circumstance in which the court rules that compensation is payable.

The principles which will normally apply in assessing the damages payable are that they should be:

• fair – in other words, an amount such as would be likely to be agreed following negotiations between the interested parties;
• appropriate bearing in mind the context of the breach and its nature;
• made with the awareness of the strength of the bargaining position that is created by the right to claim injunctive relief, thus preventing or limiting a development, and the profit that thereby might accrue to the person able to claim the injunctive relief;
• based on a fair percentage of the anticipated size of the profit, but if the profit is not known, the appropriate measure is a suitable multiple based on the loss of amenity;
• not so large that the development would not have gone ahead had it been payable; and
• fitting in the circumstances, after taking into consideration all the other relevant factors.

In the case in point, the court awarded the applicant a sum estimated to be 30 per cent of the developer’s expected profits. If unchallenged, the practical implication of this case is that developers whose developments are likely to take the light of adjacent property owners should be aware that failing to negotiate a favourable position at the outset might lead to a considerable reduction in the development profit should the matter end up being decided in court.

Call Jonathan Foy on 01727 735675 (DDI) or email jf@dolegal.co.uk

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.

Latest News

A recent case ( Whitham v Club 24 Ltd. t/a Ventura ) sheds further light o...
A consultation on ways of making it easier for social housing providers t...
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) will be targeting 6,000 Swiss bank accounts ...
There has recently been a further case on long-term sickness and a worker&...
Creating a commercial database and keeping it up to date is an expensive b...
When a supplier to a marquee company was not paid for goods it had supplie...
The Supreme Court has denied HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) the right of ap...
Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (now superseded by the Equ...
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) have announced that the Mortgage Verificatio...
The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) (Amendment) Regu...
The Bribery Act 2010 came into force on 1 July 2011. Under Section 2 of ...
In Williamson & Soden Solicitors v Briars , the Employment Appeal T...
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) have announced that, from 1 January 2012, su...
The Forum of Private Business (FPB) has reported a noticeable increase in ...
It is common for service charges to be paid ‘on account’ of th...
There are generally strict time limits that apply when presenting a claim ...
The penalties for engaging in anti-competitive behaviour are very substant...
The Government is proposing to integrate the operation of the Income Tax a...
When an elderly woman passed away, her daughter, who was her personal repr...
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has issued for consultation proposals for in...
In July, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) announced that it...
When one business uses the trade marks of another, an action may be able t...
Company liquidations have edged up in the first quarter of 2011, with 4,12...
Every year the firm's Christmas party presents employees with the chance t...
If you are used to taking part of your company income by way of dividends ...
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published provisional fatal inj...
When does a commercial property become vacant under a lease agreement? Thi...
  Luke Tucker Harrison, Senior Associate Solicitor in Debenhams Otta...
An advertising and media company run by a Mr Casey sought to register the ...
A recent survey of businesses carried out by the Institute of Chartered Ac...
Following its Resolving Workplace Disputes consultation and the Red Tape C...
Operators of Amusement With Prizes (AWP) machines who receive VAT refunds ...
Under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (AWR), which came into force o...
MoneySavingExpert.com (MSE) founder Martin Lewis has won summary judgment...
A developer who completely demolished a property when he only had permissi...
Two companies have been fined a total of £450,000 and ordered to pay...
The law relating to the fiduciary duties of directors is stricter than man...
News that HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) are to create a dedicated team of ...
The Supreme Court has handed down its decision in a case concerning the em...
On 1 October 2011, changes to the Housing Grants, Construction and Regene...
Following Lord Justice Jackson’s report on his review of civil litig...
As reported previously, the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR) as they ...
A covenant can either represent a commitment to do something or a commitme...
Readers are reminded that an application to reclaim VAT incurred in anothe...
Employers are reminded that new National Minimum Wage (NMW) rates came int...
When a licensing application cannot be heard because insufficient informat...
The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) (Amendment) Regu...
Earlier this year, the Government published a consultation document entitl...
The Government is calling on businesses to have their say in the latest ...
An employee wishing to bring a claim of unfair dismissal must do so before...
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) have won a major battle in the Supreme Court...