Regan v Paul Properties

March 29, 20160

Regan v Paul Properties

In this case, we provided Rights of Light advice to Mr Regan, an affected neighbour to an adjacent new development. Paul Properties, the developer,constructed buildings on the other side of the road from Mr Regan’s property. The presence of these new buildings caused a loss in light to Mr Regan’s living room. Mr Regan was offered money to settle the matter, but he rejected the offer and insisted that his right to light was enforced and applied for an injunction to halt works.

The Court of Appeal made 3 main points as follows:

  1. The light in the living room would be reduced from 67% to  42%-45%. The judges did not consider this to be a ‘small injury’  to the living room, considering that to enjoy adequate light, he  would either have to rely on artificial light or move to a part of  the room near a window.
  2. Although the injury was capable of being estimated in money,  the adequacy to compensate by a small money payment  was rejected.
  3. As to whether the injection was oppressive to the developer,  even though this would place a significant burden of cost and  delay onto the developer, the Court of Appeal held that those  factors are not determinative of the issue of oppressiveness  and of the choice of remedy. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and to grant an injunction. This confirmed that with residential injuries, injunctions are an appropriate remedy.

The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and to grant an injunction. This confirmed that with residential injuries, injunctions are an appropriate remedy.