Introduction
The High Court’s decision in Cooper v Ludgate House Ltd [2025] EWHC 1724 (Ch), delivered by Mr Justice Fancourt, provides significant guidance on the assessment of rights of light in the context of major urban redevelopment, the interplay with statutory powers under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, and the appropriate remedies for actionable interference. The case is of particular interest to property litigators, developers, and rights of light practitioners, as it addresses novel legal questions and the application of modern daylight assessment methodologies.
Factual Background
The claimants, owners of two leasehold flats in Bankside Lofts, London SE1, sought an injunction (or damages in lieu) against Ludgate House Ltd, the developer of the “Arbor” office building, alleging actionable interference with their rights of light. Arbor forms part of the larger Bankside Yards development, which is being delivered in phases and involves multiple special purpose vehicles (SPVs) under common control.
The claimants’ rights of light were acquired by prescription over 20 years, but the legal landscape was complicated by the local authority’s use of section 203 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which authorises interference with certain private rights (including rights of light) in the public interest, subject to compensation.
Key Legal Issues
1. The Correct Basis for Assessing Interference
A central issue was whether, in light of the s.203 resolution, the assessment of actionable interference should disregard light that would be lost to future, statutorily-protected development (the “203 development”). The Court held that, although the claimants retain rights of light over the 203 development site, they cannot enforce those rights to prevent development; thus, such light should be disregarded in assessing whether Arbor alone causes actionable interference. This approach (scenario CS1) was preferred over the defendant’s argument (scenario DS1) that all currently enjoyed light should be considered until actually lost.
2. Measurement of Light and Actionable Nuisance
The Court considered competing expert evidence on the appropriate methodology for assessing sufficiency of light. The traditional Waldram method, which remains the industry standard, was preferred over newer “Radiance” methods (such as MDI and MDF) for determining actionable interference, though the Court acknowledged the value of modern methods in marginal cases. The Court found that, on the correct scenario and using the Waldram method, the claimants’ flats would suffer a substantial loss of light.
3. Discretionary Relief: Injunction or Damages
Applying the Supreme Court’s guidance in Fearn v Tate Gallery and Lawrence v Fen Tigers, the Court refused to grant a mandatory injunction requiring demolition or cut-back of Arbor. The reasons included the disproportionate harm to the developer and public interest, the likelihood that the building could be rebuilt under s.203 protection, and the adequacy of damages as a remedy. The Court emphasised that the developer had not acted in a high-handed or oppressive manner.
4. Measure of Damages
The Court held that “negotiating damages” (Wrotham Park damages) were appropriate, reflecting the value of the claimants’ lost rights as determined by a hypothetical negotiation at the time of infringement. The Court rejected both a pure “ransom” approach and the defendant’s argument for limiting damages to diminution in value. Instead, it awarded substantial sums (£500,000 and £350,000) to the claimants, reflecting a fair share of the uplift in development value attributable to the release of their rights, but discounted to account for the presence of other potential objectors and the realities of negotiation.
Practical Implications
- Assessment of Rights of Light: Where statutory powers (s.203) have been invoked, light that cannot be protected should be disregarded in assessing actionable interference by earlier, unprotected development.
- Methodology: The Waldram method remains the primary tool for assessing sufficiency of light, though modern methods may inform the analysis.
- Remedies: Injunctions will not be granted where disproportionate harm or futility would result, and negotiating damages remain available for loss of valuable property rights.
- Damages Calculation: The hypothetical negotiation must reflect the realities of multiple objectors and the actual value of the rights, not a simple share of development profit or a “ransom” sum.
Conclusion
Cooper v Ludgate House Ltd is a landmark decision clarifying the approach to rights of light in the context of large-scale urban redevelopment and statutory intervention. It provides a pragmatic framework for assessing actionable interference and remedies, balancing private rights with the public interest in development. For property professionals, this judgment underscores the importance of early strategic consideration of rights of light, the impact of statutory powers, and the evidential demands of modern light assessment. The case is likely to be influential in future disputes and may be subject to appellate review given the novel points of law addressed.
For more information, get in touch with our team today.