Rights to Light Case Law Midtown v City of London Real Property Ltd

The Rights to Light Case Law of Midtown v City of London Real Property Company Ltd (2005) offers one of the most comprehensive and nuanced modern judgments on rights to light, prescription, remedies, and planning law exceptions.

Delivered by Mr Justice Peter Smith in the High Court in January 2005, the ruling addressed two related claims involving infringement of rights to light caused by a major redevelopment near Fetter Lane, London EC4.

This landmark decision not only reaffirmed the principles underpinning rights to light under the Prescription Act 1832 but also provided extensive judicial guidance on discretionary remedies, particularly the refusal of injunctive relief where damages suffice.

It is a leading authority in rights to light jurisprudence and remains highly relevant for developers, landlords, leaseholders, and planning authorities.

Background and Parties

The claim arose from a redevelopment project at New Street Square, east of 43 Fetter Lane (“the Property”), owned by Midtown Ltd, which had leased it to the solicitors' firm Kendall Freeman.

The City of London Real Property Company, part of the Land Securities Group, intended to build a new office block (the “Triangle Building”) adjacent to the Property.

The claimants alleged that the proposed building would significantly interfere with their long-established rights to light and sought an injunction to restrain construction or, alternatively, damages.

Establishing the Right to Light

The claimants argued that the rights to light had been acquired through prescription, specifically under section 3 of the Prescription Act 1832.

They had to demonstrate that uninterrupted light had been “actually enjoyed” through the relevant windows for at least 20 years prior to the claim.

Although the Property was built in the 1950s–60s, the court focused on usage from 1982, when Kendall Freeman began occupation.

Complications arose because the firm’s lease changed hands over time, and the Defendant challenged the continuity of use necessary to establish a prescriptive easement.

Justice Peter Smith ultimately accepted that Midtown, as the freeholder, had acquired the right through continuous use. Kendall Freeman’s position was more complex, but their rights were affirmed based on a combination of:

the operation of section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which enables certain rights, including those not yet fully perfected, to pass with a conveyance or lease where they are used with the property.

a retrospective deed of grant from Midtown during the trial. This deed formally transferred the right to light from Midtown to Kendall Freeman, thereby reinforcing Kendall Freeman's claim.

Challenges to the Right: The Yellow Land and the 1930 Conveyance

1. The 1930 Conveyance Exception

The Defendant relied on a 1930 conveyance in which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners reserved rights to build on adjoining, opposite, or neighbouring land without compensation, even if such development interfered with light or air enjoyed by others. Justice Peter Smith interpreted this reservation not as a restrictive covenant but as a form of contractual permission that effectively rendered any enjoyment of light over the affected land permissive rather than adverse. As such, it prevented the acquisition of prescriptive rights over that portion of the Site, known as the "Yellow Land."

2. Section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

The Defendant also claimed that, under section 237 TCPA 1990, it could override any easement because the land had been acquired by the City of London for planning purposes decades earlier. However, the judge held that this statutory power is not unfettered and should only apply where the development relates to the original planning purpose. Since the current scheme had no connection to the post-war regeneration programme of the 1950s, the court rejected the argument.

Rights to Light Case Law Midtown v City of London Real Property : Infringement Analysis

Both parties' expert surveyors agreed that the proposed Triangle Building would significantly reduce the area of several rooms that received a light level of 1 lumen per square foot. This level is considered the minimum for reading without artificial lighting. The so-called 50/50 rule was used to assess adequacy. Most rooms would fall below this threshold under the proposed development.

Justice Smith ruled that the reduction constituted an actionable nuisance and infringed the Claimants' rights to light — except for areas affected by the Yellow Land carve-out.

Arguments Against the Grant of Injunction

While the court acknowledged the interference, it ultimately refused to grant an injunction. Several factors influenced this decision:

For Midtown Ltd:

Midtown held the property solely as a speculative investment, not for occupation.

It had likely paused redevelopment plans to extract compensation from the Defendant.

An injunction would give Midtown unwarranted leverage and potentially result in wasteful duplication of development rights.

For Kendall Freeman:

The firm’s current and intended use of the building involved constant artificial lighting.

The interference did not materially affect their business operations, nor was there any significant capital diminution.

Their subjective testimony on the value of natural light was unconvincing and contradicted by practice.

The court concluded that both claimants were primarily interested in financial compensation, not practical use of the right to light.

Damages in Lieu of Injunction

Justice Smith awarded damages instead of an injunction, applying the principles in Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co and Jaggard v Sawyer.

He emphasised that injunctions are not automatic and depend on the claimant’s conduct, the nature of the interference, and whether monetary compensation is sufficient.

A separate inquiry into damages was ordered, which could reflect either diminution in value or a negotiated release figure.

Rights to Light Case Law Midtown v City of London Real Property : Key Takeaways

Prescriptive Rights to Light Remain Strong — But Must Be Proven: Clear evidence of 20 years’ continuous use is essential.

Section 62 LPA 1925 Can Rescue Emerging Rights: Rights in progress can transfer under lease where consistent usage is shown.

Agreements Like the 1930 Conveyance Can Defeat Easements: Contractual permissions can prevent rights from becoming prescriptive.

Section 237 TCPA Does Not Provide Blanket Immunity: Planning powers must relate to the original acquisition purpose.

Artificial Lighting Does Not Extinguish the Right to Natural Light: Rights remain enforceable even if artificial lighting is standard.

Injunctions Are Not Guaranteed in Rights to Light Claims: Courts assess broader context; compensation may suffice.

Damages Can Reflect More Than Diminution in Value: Compensation can include negotiated value for loss of rights.

Conclusion : Rights to Light Case Law Midtown v City of London Real Property

The Rights to Light Case Law Midtown v City of London Real Property remains a cornerstone in understanding how English courts handle rights to light disputes, particularly where planning permissions and large-scale developments clash with long-standing easements.

It provides a thorough roadmap for interpreting complex interactions between statutory rights, private interests, and modern planning law.

Importantly, it demonstrates how courts are willing to balance the public interest in urban redevelopment with the private entitlement to light, without granting automatic injunctions that could derail beneficial projects.

Midtown establishes that equitable discretion can override rigid legal entitlements when financial compensation offers a more just outcome.

By clarifying the boundaries of section 237 TCPA and reinforcing the limitations of prescriptive acquisition in the face of historical permissions, the judgment ensures greater certainty for developers while preserving fundamental property rights.

As such, the case has become a vital reference point for legal practitioners advising on rights to light, urban design, and risk mitigation in property development.

Need support with a rights to light issue?
Our specialist surveyors and legal advisers can assist with expert reports, neighbour negotiations, and strategic risk assessments.

Rights to Light Case Law - Resources

Rights to Light Fact Sheet

What is a Right to Light

Rights to Light Case Law Regan v Paul

Rights to Light Case Law Tamares v Fairpoint

Contact : Rights to Light Case Law Midtown v City of London Real Property

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.