Rights to Light Case Law: Coventry v Lawrence

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rights to Light Case Law Coventry v Lawrence ([2014] UKSC 13) remains one of the most significant modern decisions concerning private nuisance in English law.

While not a rights to light case in the strictest sense, it set down essential principles on land use conflicts between neighbours—principles that directly affect how rights to light, noise, pollution, and planning consent interact in the built environment.

This blog post explores the Coventry v Lawrence decision with a focus on its implications for property law, planning, and nuisance, and extracts key lessons for professionals involved in advising on rights to light or neighbourhood land use disputes.

Background: Noise Nuisance and Longstanding Use

The case centred around a rural bungalow ("Fenland") purchased in 2006 by Ms Lawrence and Mr Shields, situated near a motor sports stadium and a motocross track.

The stadium had been in intermittent use for speedway, stock car, and banger racing since the 1970s, with a history of planning permissions and a Certificate of Lawful Use confirming longstanding activities.

Despite these permissions, the new homeowners found the noise intolerable and sued in private nuisance, seeking both damages and an injunction.

The case raised five fundamental issues in nuisance law, many of which had significant implications for other easement-based rights like rights to light.

Key Legal Issues and Supreme Court Findings

1. Can a Nuisance Be Justified by Planning Permission?

One of the central questions was whether planning permission (and associated lawful use certificates) could justify what would otherwise be a nuisance.

The Supreme Court firmly held that planning permission does not authorise a nuisance. In other words, even if a land use or activity is permitted by the local planning authority, it does not grant the operator carte blanche to interfere with neighbouring property rights.

However, the Court recognised that planning permission may be relevant when assessing the "character of the locality," a key factor in determining whether an activity constitutes a nuisance.

For example, in a predominantly industrial area, certain levels of noise or activity might be more acceptable than in a quiet residential setting.

Nevertheless, where such activities go beyond what is reasonable—even in a permitted planning context—they can still give rise to actionable nuisance claims.

The ruling underlines that planning decisions, made in the public interest, do not displace the private law rights of property owners.

2. Can a Right to Commit a Nuisance Be Acquired by Prescription?

The Court confirmed that it is legally possible to acquire a right to make noise that would otherwise be a nuisance through prescription (i.e. 20 years of uninterrupted nuisance as of right).

This means that if a landowner has openly and continuously engaged in a level of activity that amounts to a nuisance, without objection or interruption for two decades, they may be granted a legal right to continue such activity.

However, the burden of proof is high and rests with the defendant. They must demonstrate not only that the activity was continuous and consistent over the period, but that it was sufficiently invasive to qualify as a nuisance for that entire duration, and that it was carried out openly (not in secret), without the consent of the affected neighbours, and without legal action being taken to stop it.

This is a challenging evidentiary standard and, as the Court noted, the practical difficulties of proving these elements mean that successful claims of prescriptive nuisance rights are rare.

3. Is "Coming to the Nuisance" a Defence?

The Supreme Court strongly rejected the idea that it is a defence to nuisance that the complainant "came to the nuisance."

This means that a person who moves into a property that is already subject to disruptive or nuisance-causing activity does not lose the right to complain simply because the nuisance was pre-existing.

The Court clarified that nuisance is a property-based tort, and the entitlement to quiet enjoyment of land attaches to the land itself, not to the identity of the owner or occupier. Consequently, a new owner is just as entitled as their predecessor to protection from interference.

Even if the nuisance had been ongoing for years, the fact that a new resident knowingly moved nearby does not legitimise the offending activity.

The Court’s firm stance confirms that established nuisance-causing activities cannot inoculate themselves from liability simply through longevity or local familiarity.

4. Can the Defendant’s Activity Define the Character of the Locality?

Yes—but only to the extent that the activity is lawful and not itself a nuisance.

The Supreme Court made it clear that while a defendant’s activities may help define the character of a locality—an important consideration in nuisance law—this can only apply if the activities in question are carried out lawfully and without constituting a nuisance.

If the activity is itself a nuisance, it cannot be used to argue that its presence somehow justifies its continuation or sets the standard for what is acceptable in the neighbourhood. Otherwise, this would create a circular and unjust result where harmful activities are legitimised simply by their duration or frequency.

In effect, a nuisance cannot bootstrap itself into lawfulness merely through endurance.

The Court emphasised that lawful, non-nuisance activities may shape what neighbours should reasonably expect in a given area, but activities proven to cause a nuisance must be excluded from this baseline when assessing claims.

5. Damages vs Injunctions in Nuisance Cases

The judgment revolutionised how courts approach remedies in nuisance cases.

Historically, the "Shelfer test" governed the choice between granting an injunction and awarding damages, generally favouring the former unless very specific and exceptional conditions were met.

However, the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence departed from this restrictive framework and endorsed a more flexible, discretionary approach. It emphasised that courts should not rigidly apply a checklist but instead exercise judgment based on the specific facts and equities of each case.

The Court held that:

Injunctions remain the presumptive remedy;

But damages may be appropriate where an injunction would be oppressive or disproportionate;

Public interest and the economic value of the defendant’s use may be relevant.

This is of particular significance in rights to light claims, where injunctions have traditionally been the norm.

Implications for Rights to Light and Property Use Conflicts

Although the judgment didn’t address rights to light directly, it reshaped how the courts think about property-based torts, especially those involving conflicts between long-standing use and changing neighbourhoods.

For rights to light practitioners, the following lessons are especially relevant:

Prescription is hard to prove : As with noise, proving a prescriptive right to light (under s.3 Prescription Act 1832) requires strong and uninterrupted evidence.

Planning consent doesn’t override private rights : A development that has permission may still infringe private rights like light or amenity.

The character of the locality is not absolute : It cannot be used to justify rights-infringing activity unless that activity is lawful and non-nuisance.

Injunctions are no longer automatic : Courts now assess proportionality and broader impacts when choosing between an injunction and damages.

Key Takeaways

1. Planning Permission ≠ Legal Immunity : Even fully permitted developments can give rise to private nuisance actions.

2. Rights Can Be Acquired by Long Use – But It’s Difficult : Prescription for nuisance requires consistent unlawful impact for 20 years.

3. Newcomers Are Protected : "Coming to the nuisance" is not a defence. Buyers of affected property have full rights to complain.

4. Legal Flexibility on Remedies : Injunctions are not guaranteed; damages may suffice if they can fairly compensate the claimant.

5. Rights-Based Tort Law Remains Robust : Despite planning frameworks, private landowners retain significant protections against intrusive neighbours.

Conclusion : Rights to Light Case Law Coventry v Lawrence

Coventry v Lawrence reshaped the nuisance landscape—and, by extension, reaffirmed the enduring value of property-based torts like rights to light. For planning consultants, surveyors, and developers, the case is a stark reminder that lawful planning status does not neutralise legal obligations to neighbouring property owners.

For professionals advising on rights to light, Coventry underscores the importance of balancing historic use, planning realities, and neighbourly rights with a careful eye on both legal precedent and practical outcomes.

Rights to Law Case Law - Resources

Rights to Light Fact Sheet

What is a Right to Light

Rights to Light Case Law Colls v Home & Colonial

Rights to Light Case Law Regan v Paul

Contact : Rights to Light Case Coventry v Lawrence

At Anstey Horne, we are specialists in Right to Light assessments, neighbourly matters, and daylight and sunlight reports. With decades of experience supporting residential and commercial developments across the UK, our team can help you navigate the legal, technical, and planning complexities.

Contact us today to book a consultation or for further advice.

We have compiled a collection of articles in our Rights to Light blog with more information on how a right is acquired, measured and defended, please see our collection

For advice on rights to light direct from one of our surveyors, please call our Rights to Light Enquiry Line on 020 4534 3138.

If you’d like us to call you, please fill in our Contact Us form and we will call you back.