A recent decision by the High Court has provided developers with a small win in their constant dispute with residents. Handstone Investments Ltd v Abri Group Ltd [2024] EWHC (Ch) was a dispute between a not-for-profit housing association and the owner of a neighbouring property. Abri Group Ltd were building a four-storey building containing thirty-three affordable housing flats in Dorset. The cause of the dispute was an application for an interim injunction, a remedy that maintains the status quo between parties whilst a case is ongoing. The application was made on the basis that the development would cause disruption to the light enjoyed by the neighbouring property.
The developers bought the site with planning permission already in place, granted in 2020. There had been multiple attempts by the parties to find a solution to mitigate the amount of light being obstructed, to no avail. Despite disagreement between the parties’ surveyors, the Judge accepted the defendant’s assessment that the actual loss based on rental value of the neighbouring property would be just short of £16,000. The claimant argued that damages would not be an appropriate remedy as he was protecting a property right, hence the injunction. Their reasoning behind the interim injunction was that if they continued developing until the trial, then the building would be much further along and as a result the judge less likely to order the building to be taken down.
A noticeable event in this case was upon the Judges’ review of whether damages were appropriate. The Judge noted that the neighbouring property was tenanted, therefore an investment by the owner and his interests were solely financial. The only complaint from the tenant was several years earlier to the planning application, but nothing since. Regarding the claimant, they will receive rent regardless of the light interference, so will suffer no great detriment. The Judge reinforced his decision that damages were appropriate through the following points:
- The Claimant had not issued proceedings until 4 years after planning permission was granted in 2020, so the development had already progressed a lot.
- The development in question was community focused aiming to provide affordable housing.
- The Tenant that occupies the neighbouring property, so would be affected, has not complained other than the planning permission objection.
Ultimately, the Judge rejected the injunction and found that Damages were appropriate due to the claimant’s interest in the property being financial.
This decision is interesting as it gives developers a degree of clarity in the law, clearly in the dispute of light interference, but also to the extent of which interim injunctions are permitted. Even where a violation on the Waldram Method is admitted, the injunction can still be denied, especially when the development is in the interest of the public. The issue of delays in proceedings is a vital takeaway from this case, claimants need to act swiftly in their proceedings and not wait until developments are already well underway. One large factor for the judge was that the Claimant could be compensated monetarily due to the property being tenanted, if they were living in the property then maybe that decision wouldn’t have been reached.
