Dispute over right to light.
Gabriel Moss QC HHJ said: ‘I would deduce the following principles from these cases in relation to the assessment of damages for loss of the ability to prevent an infringement of a right to light at the point just before any infringement takes place: (1) The overall principle is that the Court must attempt to find what would be a ‘fair’ result of a hypothetical negotiation between the parties;
(2) The context, including the nature and seriousness of the breach, must be kept in mind;
(3) The right to prevent a development (or part) gives the owner of the right a significant bargaining position;
(4) The owner of the right with such a bargaining position will normally be expected to receive some part of the likely profit from the development (or relevant part);
(5) If there is no evidence of the likely size of the profit, the Court can do its best by awarding a suitable multiple of the damages for loss of amenity;
(6) If there is evidence of the likely size of the profit, the Court should normally award a sum which takes into account a fair percentage of the profit;
(7) The size of the award should not in any event be so large that the development (or relevant part) would not have taken place had such a sum been payable;
(8) After arriving at a figure which takes into consideration all the above and any other relevant factors, the Court needs to consider whether the ‘deal feels right’.’
Gabriel Moss QC
 EWHC 828 (Ch)
England and Wales
See Also – Tamares (Vincent Square) Ltd. v Fairpoint Properties (Vincent Square) Ltd ChD 8-Feb-2007
The defendant had been found liable for infringing the claimant’s right of light. The court considered the proper measure of damages.
Held: The court should ask what might be the fair result of a hypothetical negiation for the sale of the . .
Appeal from – Tamares (Vincent Square) Ltd v Fairpoint Properties (Vincent Square) Ltd CA 15-Nov-2007
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.254481