Thursday, April 2nd, 2009
A factory owner who was willing to lose some of his right to light to accommodate a new development but then objected when the loss was much greater than agreed has won his case in the Court of Appeal.
The owner had entered into an agreement with the developer in which he accepted that a new development would have an adverse effect on his right to light but he would not take any action to enforce that right.
Once the development had been completed, however, the developers then began work on another building. They registered a light obstruction notice against the factory on the basis that it would be affected by a wall that might be built close by.
The factory owner began legal proceedings to protect his right to light on the basis that the new proposal would cause far more of an obstruction than the one that had been originally agreed.
The case went all the way to the Court of Appeal which has now ruled in favour of the factory owner. It held that on a fair reading of the agreement, the owner had only consented to a development that would cause some loss of light. He had not consented to a completely
separate development that would block out all light.
In entering into the original agreement, the factory owner had not abandoned his right to light nor lost his entitlement to enforce that right.
© Copyright 2009 Burt Brill & Cardens Solicitors