Every now and then, Courts are asked to decide whether it is
appropriate in nuisance cases to grant an injunction (an order that a party must
do or not do something) or to compensate a claimant in damages (money).
The case of Scott –v- Aimiuwu – (County Court, unreported,
18/2/2015) is the first time the issue has been decided upon since the Judgment
of the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence (2014).
The decision looks set to provide some comfort to
developers. The Court refused to grant an injunction and awarded damages of
£31,499 instead. The reasoning was as follows:
1. An injunction would be oppressive and punitive;
2.The interference in light was only to secondary
accommodation i.e. a garage/workshop and utility room;
3.The Defendants had planning permission and had taken
expert advice that the interference was not material;
4.There is no hard and fast rule of law that every room has
to enjoy 50% of light.
Conclusions?
Developers should always take advice on the impact of right to light. Adjoining
owners may want to consider bringing urgent injunction proceedings where
possible. if money isn’t sufficient for their loss.
the Judge concluded that an injunction requiring demolition would be punitive and oppressive
Share
Have a related issue you want to talk about?
