However, that may no longer be the correct advice. We offer this warning as a result of a recent High Court case involving properties in the City of London where, basically, a new block was to be built next to an old block, with the result that there would be a breach of a right to light. On the facts, it was decided it would not be appropriate to grant an injunction, given the nature of the properties, and their location. For instance, evidence showed that the offices in the claimant’s existing block all used artificial light throughout the day anyway; moreover, there were plans afoot to develop that property; it was generally beneficial to the City to have developments of this sort proceed. Moreover, the overriding issue here was that the claimant’s interest in the property was purely financial and any diminution in the value of the property could be adequately compensated by money.

Although the facts of the case were particularly complicated, the principle that emerges is simple: the conventional remedy of an injunction may not be available in a city, where different standards apply. Accordingly, injunctions would now seem to be less likely to be granted in built-up areas against developers than was previously the case – although that then leaves open the question of what the damages should be. See Midtown v City of London Real Property [2005] EWHC 33, noted in [2005] NLJ 319.