12 Days of Christmas 2025 - Day 7

Day 7 of our 12 Days of Christmas feature looks at a case that considered a number of oft-debated issues in the area of rights of light. Much of the law relating to rights of light, as well as the primary method of technical assessment for light loss –the “Waldram” method - is over 100 years old. Many in the industry were questioning whether this case would result in a potential shake-up of established practice.

 

The Background

The claim was brought in connection with a significant mixed-use development in Blackfriars known as Bankside Yards. The first phase of development was the construction of a building known as “the Arbor” which was, by the time of the hearing, fully constructed and let to a number of corporate tenants.

The facts of this case are relatively unique. Subsequent phases of Bankside Yards had the benefit of s203 Housing and Planning Act 2016 (s203), entitling the developer to build the rest of the development (including two towers of 32 and 30 storeys opposite Bankside Lofts), without the owners of the flats in Bankside Lofts being able to stop it. The Arbor did not have this protection.

The owners of flats 605 and 705 in Bankside Lofts claimed that the Arbor unlawfully interfered with their rights of light. They claimed an injunction requiring the demolition of the Arbor, with damages in the alternative. The court had to grapple with key issues that go to the heart of any claim in rights of light including:

• the nature of a right of light, and what light was relevant in identifying potential injuries;
• whether the Waldram method was still fit for purpose and the relevance of alternative methods assessment;
• how the court should exercise its discretion in choosing between an injunction and damages; and
• how damages should be assessed.

 

The Decision

The court held that the Arbor did interfere with the claimants' rights of light. The judge refused to agree with the defendant's submission that the Waldram method was outdated and should be replaced. Waldram "has stood the test of time and has the confidence of the industry", while other methods of assessment put forward by the defendant were too subjective and impressionistic to replace Waldram.

The court did not grant an injunction. In the eyes of the judge, the harm caused to the defendant's interests and the Arbor tenants and the benefits to the public of the high-quality development outweighed the harm to the claimants. The judge also considered that the award of an injunction may very well have been “futile” due to the likelihood that the developer would obtain planning permission to rebuild the Arbor after its demolition, but this time with the protection of s203.

The court came down in favour of the claimants' submission that negotiating damages should be awarded, rather than diminution in value. The court awarded GBP500,000 to flat 605 and GBP350,000 to flat 705.

 

Practice points

While some people who have been following rights of light cases in recent years may see this as a softening of the courts from the previous “hardline” approaches in Regan v Paul Properties [2006], HKRUK II v Heaney [2010] and Beaumont v Florala [2020], this case is fact-specific and the involvement of s203 powers played a critical part in some of the decision-making. What is heartening for developers, however, is the court's flexible approach to the exercise of its discretion, showing that the guidance handed down by the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence [2014] is being followed. And while the case breathes continued life into the Waldram method of assessment, it makes clear that the “traditional” or “book value” method of assessing compensation that is used in the majority of rights of light negotiations (and which is underpinned by Waldram) is not the method that will be adopted by the court. 

Now for a festive joke to get you in the Christmas spirit: What did the ocean say when Santa flew over? Nothing. It just waved.