Rights of light disputes

As urban development continues to intensify, disputes over rights of light are increasingly common. For both developers and occupiers, understanding the evolving legal landscape is essential to managing risk and protecting interests. This article explores the nature of rights of light, the most recent developments in case law, and offers some practical guidance for all parties. 

What are rights of light?

Rights of light are a form of easement that entitles a property owner to receive natural light through defined apertures (typically windows) without substantial interference.

These rights can be acquired in several ways, most commonly either by express or implied grant or through a long period of use, such as under the Prescription Act 1832, which requires uninterrupted enjoyment of natural light for at least 20 years.

Importantly, rights of light are distinct from planning considerations. While planning permission may be granted for a development that affects the distribution of natural light, this does not override any private law rights enjoyed by the occupiers of the existing neighbouring properties. As such, developers must consider both public and private law implications when designing and constructing buildings.

The assessment of whether a right has been infringed typically involves technical analysis. The century-old Waldram method, which determines whether a room is adequately lit by measuring the amount of visible sky from a reference point within the room, remains the judicially preferred standard. Although more modern methods (eg Radiance modelling) have been proposed, courts have generally resisted moving away from Waldram, even recently, citing its consistency and established use.

Recent case law

In the recent case of Cooper v Ludgate House Ltd [2025] EWHC 1724 (Ch), also referred to as “the Bankside Yards case”, the High Court considered claims by residents of Bankside Lofts that their rights of light were infringed by the construction of Arbor, a 19-storey office building forming part of a £1 billion regeneration scheme. Using the Waldram method, the court found that the development caused actionable interference, including a significant reduction of natural light to a bedroom in one of the claimants’ flats. The loss was deemed substantial enough to affect the reasonable use of the space.

Despite this, the court declined to grant an injunction requiring demolition or alteration of the building. It emphasised the public interest in preserving the completed development, the environmental impact of demolition, and the fact that Arbor was already occupied. Instead, the court awarded negotiating damages (£500,000 to one claimant and £350,000 to another) based on a hypothetical release of rights.

The judgment reaffirmed the Waldram method as the appropriate standard. It also highlights the courts’ increasing preference for damages over injunctive relief where the development serves the public interest.

In Handston Investments Ltd v Abri Group Ltd [2024] EWHC 3523 (Ch), the High Court dismissed an application for an interim injunction to halt construction of a four-storey social housing development in Poole, Dorset. The claimant, Handston, owned a neighbouring commercial office building with established rights of light by prescription. Technical analysis (again using the Waldram method) confirmed that the development would cause actionable interference, particularly to rooms on the ground and first floors.

Despite this, the court declined to grant interim relief. Abri, a charitable housing association, argued that damages would be an adequate remedy for Handston, whose interest was purely financial. The court agreed, noting that the office building was fully let and therefore any loss could be quantified. Crucially, the court weighed the public benefit of the development, which aimed to deliver 33 affordable housing units. The potential delay caused by an injunction (costing £40,000 per week) was deemed disproportionate. The case reinforces the difficulty of obtaining interim injunctions in rights of light claims, especially where the claimant’s interest is commercial and the development serves a broader social purpose.

Remedies: injunction or damages?

Historically, courts leaned towards granting injunctions to prevent or reverse interference with rights of light. However, the recent decisions examined above reflect a more pragmatic and discretionary approach, particularly in cases involving large-scale developments.

The strict Shelfer test from an 1895 case, which sets out the criteria for when damages might be awarded instead of an injunction, has been softened. Courts now consider factors such as the public interest in the development, the environmental impact of demolition and whether the building is already occupied.

In many cases, “negotiating” damages are awarded. These are calculated based on a hypothetical negotiation in which the defendant would have agreed to pay a reasonable sum to the claimant to be released from its obligation not to infringe on the claimant’s rights of light. This approach provides a middle ground, compensating the affected party without halting or undoing the development. 

How developers can manage risk

For developers, rights of light present a significant legal and financial risk. Early and proactive management is essential. Key steps include:

• Light assessments: Engage specialist surveyors to conduct assessments using the Waldram method. This should be done during the design phase to identify potential risks and adjust plans accordingly.
• Section 203 Housing and Planning Act 2016: This provision allows certain public bodies to override easements, including rights of light, when land is acquired for regeneration. Developers working with local authorities may benefit from this statutory protection but must ensure proper procedures are followed.
• Insurance policies: Rights of light insurance is a vital tool for developers. It typically covers:
  • Legal costs of defending claims
  • Compensation or settlement payments
  • Costs associated with delays or redesigns
• Policies can be taken out pre-construction or retrospectively, and premiums vary depending on location, scale, and risk profile. Developers should work closely with brokers and legal advisers to ensure coverage is adequate and tailored to the project.
• Deeds of release: Where potential infringements are identified, developers may negotiate deeds of release with affected parties. These are formal agreements in which the beneficiary of the right agrees to waive or release it, often in exchange for compensation. Deeds of release provide certainty and can be preferable to litigation. If insurance has been taken out then negotiating a deed of release, with the approval of insurers, may also be a pragmatic solution to resolving the issue.
• Documentation and record-keeping: Maintaining clear records of assessments, communications, and mitigation efforts can be invaluable if a dispute arises.
• Light Obstruction Notices: Consider if a light obstruction notice should be served to interrupt the passage of light and prevent rights being acquired through prescription.

How occupiers can protect their rights

Tenants and occupiers should be aware of their potential rights and how to assert them. Key points include:

• Identifying rights: Rights of light may exist even if not expressly documented. Long-term enjoyment of light through windows may give rise to a prescriptive easement. Tenants should review lease terms and seek legal advice to understand their position.
• Documenting impact: Changes in light levels should be recorded, and expert reports may be necessary to support a claim. Photographic evidence and professional assessments can strengthen a case.
• Valuation: Understanding how negotiating damages are calculated is crucial for assessing potential compensation. This may involve expert valuation and legal input.
• Legal advice: Early engagement with our real estate disputes team can help clarify rights and develop a strategy, whether pursuing a claim or negotiating a settlement.
• Strategic leverage: In some cases, the threat of an injunction (even if unlikely to succeed) can be a powerful negotiating tool. Occupiers should consider their objectives and the broader context when deciding how to proceed.

Winning strategies for developers and occupiers

Whether you’re a developer seeking to mitigate risk or an occupier asserting your rights, negotiation plays a central role in resolving rights of light disputes, and our real estate disputes team can help you navigate every step of the process. Here are some practical tips:

For developers

• Engage early: Open dialogue with neighbours can prevent disputes and foster goodwill.
• Offer compensation proactively in certain circumstances: Where infringement is likely, consider offering a deed of release with fair compensation.
• Use expert reports: Independent assessments can support your position and help quantify risk.
• Be transparent: Courts favour developers who act reasonably and disclose relevant information.

For occupiers

• Know your leverage: Even if an injunction is unlikely, the potential disruption to a development can strengthen your negotiating position.
• Seek expert advice: Surveyors and solicitors can help quantify the impact and value of your rights.
• Consider long-term outcomes: A well-negotiated settlement may be preferable to prolonged litigation.
• Document everything: Keep records of light levels, communications, and any changes to your property.

Conclusion

Rights of light remain a potent legal tool for occupiers and a complex risk for developers. However, case law reflects a shift towards pragmatism, with courts increasingly favouring damages over injunctions in urban settings. For both sides, early advice, strategic planning, and a clear understanding of the legal landscape are essential to navigating these disputes effectively.