Rights of light update: Cooper v Ludgate House, Powell v Ludgate House [2025] EWHC 1724

Should a newly completed 19 storey office building with strong environmental credentials be demolished in order to avoid making two nearby flats too dark? This was one of the questions the court had to grapple with in this important recent case.

Even though rights of light issues affect every major development in built-up areas, it is rare for a big case to come to trial. This judgement is particularly important because it considers issues debated for decades about the technical measurement of light and when an injury occurs.

We evaluate the implications of the judgment below. We regularly act for both developers and owners/occupiers who want to protect their natural light, so are well-placed to assess the impact of the judgment for all sides.

The facts

Most people value natural light. As well as planning rules about daylight and sunlight, many properties enjoy a private "right of light" i.e. a right to receive a certain minimum amount of light over the properties around them. This affects the ability to develop those surrounding properties.

Shortly-stated, this case related to whether a new office building at Bankside Yards injured the rights of light of two nearby flats, and if so what the remedy should be.

Complication

The position was complicated by the fact that after the office building in question had been erected, London Borough of Southwark agreed to use its powers under section 203 of the Housing Act 2016 to protect later towers within the same planned development from claims. Essentially, neighbours could not claim injunctions in relation to those subsequent buildings and would receive only compensation for the diminution in value of their flats cause by the loss of light (which is much less than normal damages for rights of light). These section 203 powers did not protect the first office building.

A lot of the judgment discusses how the existence of this later protected development impacted on the analysis of the claim. This aspect is outside the scope of this update as it is very technical and turns on unusual facts.

The outcome

While the court found there was an injury, it refused an injunction (the first significant case to do so in a while), and awarded a much lower amount of damages than the Claimants were claiming (a total of £850,000 as against claims of circa £6 million). We discuss the most significant aspects of the case in further detail below.

In terms of how the outcome will be perceived:

In our view, developers will like many features of this case, which will assist them in negotiations with neighbours. However it does not take away the fact that rights of light remain a problem, which still need to be carefully analysed and de-risked. It would be a mistake to try to short-cut any of the existing processes.
As far as neighbours are concerned, the case confirms that the traditional test for assessing loss of light (the Waldram test) remains supported by the courts and they can still receive sizeable sums in respect to damages, even if an injunction is refused - £850,000 is still a chunky amount of money, on any measure! We therefore fully expect rights of light claims to continue.
The outcome is also good for the industry: the Waldram test is simple, well-understood by all, and brings certainty. Any move away from this would have made it harder and more expensive to assess risks and insure. However, the judgment does leave the door open to use of modern "Radiance" tests, especially in marginal cases, so we can expect to see more of this.
Insurers will note that the developer's proactive contact with the neighbours was one of the factors contributing towards the refusal of the injunction. We may see more requirements for proactive conduct in insurance policies.

Key points

1. Measuring light

Probably the most significant aspect of the case is that it resolves a decades-long debate over how to measure light. Broadly, the traditional method (known as Waldram analysis) dates back to the 1920s. It involves looking at how much of a room, at desk height, can see at least 0.2% of the sky. By contrast, other, more modern methods, can analyse much more precisely the actual light that will be received, taking into account factors such as the local weather patterns and reflected light. But these are a lot more complicated and expensive.

The court found that many of the criticisms of the Waldram method are overstated. Interestingly, the outcome was actually very similar using Waldram and the other more modern methods. The court said that while other methods may be relevant, especially in borderline cases, a surveyor will NOT be failing in their duty if they only use the Waldram method, particularly in straightforward cases.

This is very welcome: the Waldram method is simple and well-understood. If more complex methods were to be adopted, it would become very expensive and difficult to risk-assess developments and obtain insurance.

2. When is there a claim?

Rights of light involve looking not at how much light has been taken, but on whether the light that remains is sufficient for comfortable use of the property.

The court strongly endorsed the traditional rule of thumb that there will normally be a claim where the well-lit area of a room, on the Waldram method, is reduced to less than 50%. This applies unless there are unusual features in relation to the room shape or window position. Notably, the court held that even a small reduction to less than 50% will be actionable – the reduction does not need to be perceptible. (Different considerations may apply where a room is already poorly lit).

The court does not appear to have received argument on whether a residential building should expect to receive a higher amount of light (as suggested in some previous cases).

3. Should an injunction be granted?

The court always has discretion over whether to award an injunction to prevent the loss of light, or damages. Here, the judge weighed up an unusually wide range of factors, as developers were hoping would become the norm post Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 46.

These included:

the substantial cost of demolition and rebuilding (up to £250 million);
the public benefit in the development, which provided top-quality, net zero office space;
the disproportionate impact of an injunction on the developer compared with the harm to the Claimant – the Claimants could buy alternative well-lit flats for much less than £250 million;
coupled with the above, the court considered that the developer had not behaved badly in deciding to press ahead with the works;
the disruption that additional works would cause to the local community;
the fact that the Claimants had not included the tenants of the office building in their claim (so there would need to be further litigation before any injunction could become enforceable);
the fact that the developer could in principle demolish and rebuild the office building to exactly the same height (now section 203 had been implemented).

Some of these factors were specific to this case, so it always difficult to predict how the court will exercise its discretion in any future case. However, two features of this case stand out:

The weight placed on the fact that the Claimants could buy alternative property – this is unusual because in English law, property is normally considered unique and sacrosanct. It may be that this was affected by the fact that the Claimants used the flats as occasional London residences, as opposed to their principal homes. It remains to be seen whether this may be applied in other situations,
The ruling about the developer's conduct – this was important because the court held that where a developer has behaved badly, the negative impact of an injunction on a developer will not be given nearly as much weight. Here, the court had sympathy for the multiple competing factors a developer has to weigh up, approved of the fact that it had proactively contacted neighbours about compensation for loss of light, and held that the fact that it had timed its commencement of works before it had settled with everyone, so as to put itself in the strongest negotiating position, was not the same as behaving badly. Here, there were special features which meant that at the date works started, the developer did not know that the office building would infringe the claimants' light. The same outcome may not apply to a developer which presses ahead knowing that its development will cause an injury. But there was a lot more sympathy than usual for developers.

4. How to quantify damages?

The judge applied the usual approach of awarding "negotiating damages" i.e. based on hypothetical negotiations for the release of the rights of light. The judgment provides a clear explanation of how to approach this exercise.

In contrast to other cases, which have awarded neighbours a one third share of the profits being made from infringement of the light, the court decided that due to the risky nature of this development, the developer would need a greater share, so awarded only a 12.5% "profit pot", to be shared between all affected neighbours. This will provide a useful example for developers to quote at neighbours to show that one third is not an invariable outcome.

The court then further reduced the damages because it would be disproportionate to award the Claimants more than the value of their flats. The end awards were between 30-50% of the value of the flats. The court also sense-checked these amounts against the costs the Claimants would incur if they decided to move to other flats.

This is very significant – developers have long sought to argue that disproportionate damages should be avoided, whereas claimants have argued that large awards are justified because that developers are only making those profits by taking away their light. A proportionality test will limit developers' upper exposure.

The court held that book value damages (which is an alternative measure of damages, based on the capitalised rental value of the light lost, frequently used in negotiations between surveyors) were irrelevant to the assessment of "negotiating damages". The settlements agreed with other neighbours on the book value basis did not amount to relevant comparables for assessing the outcome of the hypothetical negotiations on the "negotiating damages" basis, because book value settlements were agreed with neighbours who were not really interested in protecting their light. This does not come as any surprise: the two types of damages have always been conceptually very different.

Conclusion

Apart from its consideration of the correct technical methods, this judgment largely represents an evolution and application of existing law to the rather unusual facts. However, the result is a lot more developer-friendly than previous recent cases and will certainly attract a lot of attention.

Please do contact Sophie Schultz or your usual Stephenson Harwood contact if you would like to discuss any of the issues in this update in more detail.

Related Expertise