Shedding Light on Coventry v Lawrence – how the courts have interpreted judicial remedy guidance Since the Supreme Court case of Coventry v Lawrence in 2014, the Real Estate development sector has been eager for a Rights of Light case to come before the courts so that the guidance offered around injunctive relief and the awarding of damages can be further clarified. Led by Lord Neuberger, the judges provided some direction as to in which circumstances an injunction should be imposed or where damages would be the more proportionate remedy; although the case itself regarded noise nuisance at a Motocross track in Suffolk, the Judges discussed the wider legal tort of nuisance in general, and in fact, they actually raised more questions than they had answered. Earlier this year, the first long awaited Rights of Light case since Coventry was heard at the Crown Court, where the judgement of Mr Recorder Edward Cole was handed down in Scott v Aimiuwu. Involving a dispute between the property owners of two large residential properties in Hertfordshire, the case centred on the claim of Mr and Mrs Scott whose right to light had been infringed by the substantial
extension undertaken at the Aimiuwu’s property – both parties had long discussed the possibility of extending their homes over several years, but it was the action of Mr and Mrs Aimiuwu in erecting the extension in 2012/13 that led to the dispute and subsequent court case. Injuring the Scott’s property along one side, the extension affected the light entering four windows – a workshop, utility room and bathroom – and despite the protests of the Scott’s, the Aimiuwu’s continued undeterred with the development of their home. Under pre-Coventry case law, the courts first remedy to consider, particularly in cases concerning residential property owners, is injunction; to cease the development altogether or cutback that which has already been built. However, following the Coventry case, the courts should now look to the individual circumstances to determine what the appropriate remedy should be – a list of potential factors was provided, but no concrete rules as to how to interpret them or in what situations they would apply. The clear ambiguity of the guidance in Coventry is exactly why the development sector eagerly anticipated a relevant Right to Light specific court case, and on the face of it, the ruling in Scott seems to offer comfort to developers where infringement of Rights of Light is a real financial risk.