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
grant an injunction and awarded damages of £31,499 instead. The reasoning was as follows:
interference in light was only to secondary accommodationi.e. a garage/workshop and utility room;
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 adverse effect of a mandatory injunction upon the defendants would be much greater than its beneficial effect on the claimants”