Rights to Light Case Law Handstone v Abri

Rights to Light Case Law Handstone v Abri Group Ltd (2024) offers important clarification on the court’s approach to interim injunctions in rights to light disputes—particularly where competing public interest, development progress, and private property rights collide.

The judgment by Mr Justice Trower, handed down in the High Court's Business and Property Courts, refused an interim injunction despite acknowledging the seriousness of the claimant’s case.

This in-depth analysis unpacks the facts, legal arguments, judicial reasoning, and the broader implications of this significant rights to light decision.

Background - Rights to Light Case Law Handstone v Abri

Handstone Investments Ltd (“Handstone”), a commercial property owner, sought a prohibitory interim injunction to stop Abri Group Ltd (“Abri”)—a major housing association—from continuing construction of a residential building on adjoining land in Broadstone, Dorset.

Handstone has owned 7 Arrowsmith Court (the “Building”) since 1992 and claimed to have acquired rights to light via prescription through certain windows. It argued that Abri’s proposed four-storey affordable housing scheme would cause a substantial and lasting infringement of those rights.

Abri, a non-profit organisation managing 50,000 homes across 36 local authorities, began construction on the adjacent site in January 2024. The new development—33 affordable flats—was due for completion in late 2025. Planning permission had been in place since 2020, but Abri only acquired the site in December 2023.

Prior to commencing works, Abri’s surveyors approached Handstone to inspect the building and negotiate compensation if needed. However, discussions between the parties failed to yield any agreement. By the time legal proceedings were issued in September 2024, the construction had already reached first-floor level.

Legal Issues and the Application

The court was asked to determine whether to issue an interim injunction, halting construction until the matter could be resolved at trial. This required a three-stage analysis:

Is there a serious issue to be tried?

Are damages an adequate remedy?

Where does the balance of convenience lie?

1. Serious Issue to Be Tried

Both parties accepted that a serious issue existed. The development risked infringing established rights to light. Even though the claimant was a commercial investor, and the defendant’s project served the public interest, the law did not preclude the possibility of injunctive relief.

Notably, both parties’ rights to light surveyors disagreed on the modelling method to assess light loss. The court accepted that some loss of light had likely already occurred and more would follow if construction continued.

2. Adequacy of Damages

The more contentious question was whether damages could sufficiently compensate the claimant in lieu of an injunction.

Handstone argued that monetary compensation could not adequately protect its proprietary right. It cited the principle that once a building is completed, it becomes much harder to secure a mandatory injunction to dismantle it—thus interim relief was necessary to preserve rights until trial.

However, Mr Justice Trower leaned heavily on Midtown Ltd v City of London Real Property Co Ltd [2005]. In that case, damages were considered appropriate where the property owner was solely concerned with financial return. The judge found the same to be true here: Handstone had no personal or sentimental interest in the light enjoyed by the building; its interest was commercial.

Moreover, Abri offered a financial undertaking not to use the ongoing works as a shield against a future mandatory injunction—mitigating the claimant’s concerns about losing its right to future injunctive relief.

Significantly, the court also observed that:

The building’s tenant had made no objection since planning was granted;

The landlord (Handstone) would continue to receive rent regardless;

The likely diminution in property value was estimated at under £16,000.

Thus, the court found damages to be an adequate remedy for any proven loss at trial.

3. Balance of Convenience

Although the judge did not base his final decision on this ground, he nonetheless weighed the balance of convenience.

Factors against granting the injunction included:

Planning permission had been granted since 2020;

The project was already underway and progressing;

The scheme delivered affordable housing in the public interest;

There had been no material complaints from the tenant;

Handstone had delayed taking decisive legal action until construction was underway.

Factors in favour of the injunction included:

The possibility of preserving the “status quo ante” by freezing construction at its current state;

The fact that the scheme could still proceed with cutbacks to avoid infringement;

Allegations that Abri acted cynically by progressing with full knowledge of the rights to light concerns.

Even so, the judge found that, “the balance of convenience would have come down in any event against the grant of an injunction, largely because of the stage which the development has reached and the fact that no attempt was made before the commencement of the works to try and resolve the issues.”

Judgment and Outcome

Mr Justice Trower ultimately refused the interim injunction. He concluded that:

A serious issue existed, but

Damages were an adequate remedy in the circumstances, and

The stage of development and public interest in housing reinforced the inappropriateness of halting construction.

He issued directions to expedite the trial for January 2025, allowing for swift final resolution with only minimal further building to occur in the interim.

Key Takeaways from Rights to Light Case Law Handstone v Abri

1. Timing matters: Landowners seeking to protect rights to light must act promptly. Delay in bringing proceedings can weigh heavily against injunctive relief, especially where development has advanced significantly.

2. Commercial interest undermines injunction prospects: Where a claimant’s sole concern is economic (e.g., rental yield or property value), courts are more inclined to award damages than halt development.

3. Surveyors don't always agree: Disputes over the significance and value of light-loss are common in negotiations. However, unless one side’s evidence is clearly deficient, the court often proceeds to trial rather than resolve technical disagreements at the interim stage.

4. Public interest plays a role: Courts may consider the broader social value of a scheme—such as providing affordable housing—when deciding whether to stop development for private light rights.

5. Strategic undertakings matter: Developers who undertake not to oppose a future injunction based on ongoing works may reassure the court that a claimant’s rights are not being irreversibly lost.

6. No tenant objection weakens the case: Absence of complaint by an affected tenant may reduce the urgency or necessity of injunctive relief, especially if the landlord’s interest is purely financial.

Conclusion - Rights to Light Case Law Handstone v Abri

Handstone v Abri reflects the delicate balance courts must strike between preserving long-standing property rights and enabling much-needed housing delivery. While rights to light remain a valuable legal protection, their enforcement via injunction is far from guaranteed—particularly when invoked late, in commercial contexts, and against socially beneficial projects.

This case provides a clear warning to property owners: act early, document light conditions robustly, and consider negotiation over litigation. For developers, it highlights the benefit of transparency, early engagement, and well-considered legal undertakings when facing potential light-based objections.

Need support with a rights to light issue?

If you are concerned about rights to light issues—whether you're a homeowner, developer, or investor—our rights to light specialists are here to help. Our expert surveyors and legal advisers can provide detailed reports, assist in negotiating with neighbours, and support you with strategic risk assessments to safeguard your project.

Rights to Light Case Law - Resources

Rights to Light Assessment : A Detailed Guide

What is a Right to Light

Rights to Case Law Morris-Garner v One Step

Rights to Light Case Law Beaumont v Florala

Contact : Rights to Light Case Law Handstone v Abri

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.