|
Right to light – in cities |
|
|
Following on from the above note on the virtual abolition of adverse possession, it is also worth remembering that the old rules on right to light are also being updated by the courts. Whilst the challenges to right to light are not as fundamental as those to adverse possession, there does seem to be an increased willingness by the courts to adapt them to the 21st century.
In particular, the courts are now willing to override the traditional 50/50 rule and refuse an injunction when they might previously have granted one.
In a city, it now seems clear from a recent High Court decision that old concepts of rights to light will have to be modified, and that such rights can no longer be used as ransom demands against developers of adjoining land. As a note from Laurie Heller puts it, this is likely to be treated as a landmark case in relation to commercial property development. Developers will rely on it heavily. Whilst each case must be judged on its own merits, this case seems to indicate a modern, fresh approach to the rights of light issues in that context. In short, city centre developments are now unlikely to be injuncted by a light-holder (although, of course, he may still be entitled to damages). For a commentary on Midtown v City of London Real Property [2005] EWHC 33 ; see [2005] 146 Property Law Journal 8 .
|
|
May 2005 |
