Rights to Light Case Law Morris-Garner v One Step

Rights to Light Case Law Morris-Garner v One Step (2018) decision in the Supreme Court represents a fundamental shift in the law surrounding negotiating damages, often termed “Wrotham Park damages”.

Though not a rights to light dispute per se, the decision has significant implications for all property-related injunctions and damage assessments—including those involving rights to light.

The judgment clarifies when negotiating damages can be awarded and limits their applicability, thereby affecting strategic litigation choices in planning, development, and rights-based disputes.

This article explores the facts, procedural history, legal principles, and ramifications of the decision, positioning it within the evolving landscape of property law and rights to light enforcement.

Background and Context - Rights to Light Case Law Morris-Garner v One Step

The dispute originated when One Step (Support) Ltd, a company providing supported living services, sued its former directors, Karen and Andrea Morris-Garner, for breaching restrictive covenants following a share sale agreement. The covenants included non-compete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions for a three-year period post-sale.

In breach of these covenants, the defendants set up a rival business—Positive Living Ltd—and competed directly with One Step in the same geographical areas. After three years, they sold their interest in the competing business for £12.8 million.

One Step brought proceedings alleging breach of contract, misuse of confidential information, and conspiracy.

They sought Wrotham Park-style damages—an amount equivalent to what they might reasonably have demanded in exchange for releasing the defendants from the restrictive covenants.

The trial judge agreed and declared One Step entitled to negotiating damages, based on what might hypothetically have been paid for a release from the covenants in 2007. The Court of Appeal upheld this ruling. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Legal Issue

In what circumstances is a claimant entitled to negotiating damages (or "Wrotham Park damages") for breach of contract, particularly where the breach does not result in measurable financial loss?

This issue has widespread significance, particularly in property law where rights such as easements or rights to light are often breached without an immediately quantifiable loss.

The Supreme Court’s Analysis

Reframing “Wrotham Park Damages”

Lord Reed, delivering the leading judgment (with which Lady Hale, Lord Wilson and Lord Carnwath agreed), rejected the label “Wrotham Park damages” due to its lack of doctrinal clarity. He preferred the term "negotiating damages", originally coined by Neuberger LJ in Lunn Poly Ltd v Liverpool & Lancashire Properties Ltd.

The judgment reviewed three relevant lines of authority:

User damages in tort (e.g., for trespass or misuse of property)

Damages under Lord Cairns’ Act (in lieu of injunctions or specific performance)

Common law contractual damages

Key Doctrinal Distinctions

1. Compensatory Principle: Damages for breach of contract aim to put the claimant in the position they would have been in if the contract had been performed—not to punish the defendant or strip their profit.

2. Equity’s Flexibility: Under Lord Cairns’ Act, courts may award damages in lieu of an injunction. In property disputes like rights to light, this has historically allowed for awards calculated by reference to what the claimant might reasonably have demanded for a release.

3. Wrotham Park as Equitable, Not Common Law: The judgment held that prior cases awarding such damages were made in equitable contexts, typically in substitution for an injunction, not in standard breach-of-contract scenarios.

The Supreme Court's Conclusion

The Court ruled that negotiating damages are not generally available at common law for breach of contract.

They are only appropriate when:

The breach deprives the claimant of a valuable asset or property-like right.

The claimant cannot be adequately compensated through standard compensatory damages.

The right infringed has a measurable economic value, and the breach has effectively denied the claimant control over its use.

This narrows the scope significantly. Negotiating damages are not a discretionary “just response,” as the Court of Appeal had suggested. They are available only when the claimant's loss is equivalent to the economic value of a right that was infringed.

In this case, the claimants could not demonstrate they had lost a valuable proprietary-like asset. Their alleged loss—loss of business from competition—was a typical financial loss measurable in conventional ways. Hence, the Court overturned the previous judgments and remitted the matter to the High Court for assessment of standard compensatory damages.

Implications for Rights to Light

Although the case did not directly involve a rights to light dispute, it dramatically affects how courts should approach remedies in such cases:

1. Equity-Led Negotiating Damages Still Available: If a claimant has an established right to light and seeks an injunction, the court retains discretion under Lord Cairns’ Act to award damages instead of an injunction. These can still be assessed by reference to a hypothetical negotiation.

2. No General Right to Negotiating Damages: Claimants must not assume they are entitled to a licence fee or share of the developer’s profit if they do not obtain an injunction.

3. Property-Like Rights Matter: Rights to light, being easements, are property rights. Thus, the principle of compensating for the economic value of lost control remains applicable in those specific circumstances.

Practical Considerations

Developers should carefully assess the risk of injunctions in rights to light cases. If an injunction is refused, damages will likely be assessed based on proven financial loss.

Surveyors and valuation experts must now ensure they focus on tangible economic loss unless the right in question meets the threshold of a valuable asset akin to property.

Claimants should still plead and argue for equitable damages in lieu of an injunction, particularly when the right in question is an easement like a right to light.

Key Takeaways - Rights to Light Case Law Morris-Garner v One Step

Negotiating damages are no longer available as an alternative to compensatory damages in most breach of contract cases.

Such damages are only available where the claimant loses a valuable right akin to property, like a right to light or intellectual property.

The “Wrotham Park” approach survives in equity—not at common law—and must be tightly connected to the loss of a control right, not merely commercial disruption.

Property-related cases, especially involving rights to light, remain eligible for negotiating damages under Lord Cairns’ Act when an injunction is refused.

The ruling provides greater legal certainty and limits judicial discretion, realigning remedies with principled compensatory doctrines.

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 Assessment : A Detailed Guide

What is a Right to Light

Rights to Case Law Wrotham Park v Parkside

Rights to Light Case Law Midtown v City of London

Contact : Rights to Light Case Law Morris-Garner v One Step

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.