Andrew Francis explains why the recent decision in Beaumont has importance beyond the world of rights of light
- Reinforces the prima facie rule that the injunction is the starting point where property rights will be, or have been infringed.
- Even if the loss of light is small and to badly lit offices, the remedy of the injunction is a real risk.
In a time of crisis we do not need more ‘bad news’. But a recent decision of the High Court is not exactly what might be hoped for when developing land, irrespective of problems coming from other quarters. But as Rudyard Kipling said in If, ‘If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs’ the lessons to be drawn from this decision, if learnt, will stand well for the future.
To set the scene, just over six years ago, the Supreme Court handed down the judgments in Lawrence v Fen Tigers [2014] AC 822, [2014] 2 All ER 622. Despite, or possibly because of
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
