Rights to Light Case Law Pavledes v Hadjisavva

The High Court decision in Rights to Light Case Law Pavledes v Hadjisavva (2013) represents an important authority on the circumstances in which the court may grant a declaratory remedy in a rights to light dispute.

Unlike most cases where injunctions or damages dominate the discussion, this case focused on the claimants’ right to a declaration regarding their rights of light, following a long-standing dispute with the defendants over a proposed development.

Mr Justice David Richards presided over the matter and delivered a thorough analysis of the legal principles relevant to quia timet (precautionary) actions, declaratory relief, and rights to light under English property law.

Background - Rights to Light Case Law Pavledes v Hadjisavva

The dispute concerned properties in Arcola Street, London E8. The claimants, Andreas and Argyroulla Pavledes, owned 15 - 21 Arcola Street. The defendants, Theodoros and Revecca Hadjisavva, owned the adjoining property at number 27.

In 2005, the defendants obtained planning permission to build a two-storey rear extension and a one-storey front extension. It wasn't until 2009 that the claimants’ surveyor, George Palos, conducted a rights of light assessment. He concluded that the proposed development would infringe upon the light enjoyed by the claimants’ property.

From 2009 to 2012, a long-running correspondence unfolded. The defendants, through their architect Mr Betham, disputed both the existence of the claimants’ rights and the significance of any potential loss of light. Despite repeated requests, they refused to provide a definitive undertaking to cease development.

Proceedings Begin

In January 2012, the defendants issued a 14-day notice of intent to proceed with their works, asserting that a modification to the design would avoid any infringement. The claimants responded swiftly, signalling their intention to seek an injunction.

Subsequent exchanges resulted in the defendants issuing a non-prejudicial undertaking not to proceed without 14 days' further notice. Yet, this undertaking came without any admission of liability.

By March 2012, with no firm acknowledgment of their rights from the defendants, the claimants issued court proceedings. The central claim sought:

A declaration that the claimants possessed rights of light over the defendants' land;

An injunction to prevent the defendants from carrying out works that would interfere with those rights.

The Defence and Changing Positions

On 3 May 2012, the defendants filed their defence. For the first time, they accepted (conditionally) that the claimants had prescriptive rights of light. Their acceptance hinged upon the assumption that Mr Palos’ analysis was correct. They admitted that the proposed development would interfere with those rights, but only for the foreseeable future and subject to technical assumptions.

They claimed, however, that there was no need for a declaration because they did not intend to carry out the works and had decided instead to let the property for five years. According to the defendants, no useful purpose would be served by granting the declaration.

The claimants adjusted their approach: they no longer sought an injunction, but still pursued a declaration, along with costs.

The Core Legal Issue: Should the Court Grant a Declaration?

The court had to decide whether it was appropriate to grant a declaration where no actual or imminent infringement of the right had occurred, and where the defendants had made conditional admissions and provided undertakings to refrain from development.

Mr Justice Richards reaffirmed the discretionary nature of declaratory relief. He referenced section 19 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR 40.20, which permits courts to make a binding declaration regardless of whether other remedies are sought.

The court emphasised that:

There need not be an actual infringement;

Nor must there be an imminent threat of one;

The key is whether the dispute is real and present and whether a declaration would serve a useful purpose.

He analysed past case law including Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers, Rolls Royce plc v Unite the Union, and CIP Property (AIPT) Ltd v Transport for London, concluding that the threshold for declarations is broader than for injunctions.

Analysis of the Dispute

The judge accepted that a real and persistent dispute had existed for over three years. While the defendants had, in their defence, conditionally admitted the rights, they had not provided an unequivocal acknowledgment. Their undertakings were without prejudice, and they reserved their rights to challenge the claimants’ assertions in the future.

Importantly, the judge found that the defendants could not be trusted to maintain their current position indefinitely. Their lease of the property until 2017 did not eliminate the possibility that they could surrender the lease or seek development later.

The court concluded that granting a declaration would:

End the dispute once and for all;

Avoid future uncertainty;

Avoid reactive litigation should the defendants later change position;

Be just and useful, particularly given the history of equivocation by the defendants.

The Defendants’ Objections Rejected

The defendants argued that:

There was no imminent threat, so no basis for relief;

The declaration would be too vague;

The claimants’ real motive was to recover legal costs.

The court rejected these objections. It reiterated that:

Imminent threat is a threshold only for injunctions, not declarations;

The persistence of the dispute justified judicial intervention;

The utility and justice of the declaration outweighed procedural quibbles.

Judgment

Mr Justice Richards ruled in favour of the claimants. He held that:

There had been a genuine legal dispute over the existence of the rights to light;

The dispute remained unresolved despite the defendants’ conditional admissions and undertakings;

A declaration would bring finality and prevent future uncertainty or litigation risk;

The declaration was appropriate in the interests of justice.

While the terms of the declaration were not finalised in the hearing, the court directed both parties to seek agreement on wording, reserving the right to rule on the terms if needed.

Key Takeaways – Rights to Light Case Law Pavledes v Hadjisavva

1. Declaratory Relief Is Available Without Imminent Infringement: Courts can grant declarations even when there is no immediate interference with rights to light.

2. Persistent Dispute Justifies Judicial Declaration: A long-running unresolved dispute justifies a declaration to bring clarity and finality.

3. Undertakings “Without Prejudice” Are Not Enough: A defendant cannot avoid a declaration simply by offering non-binding or qualified undertakings.

4. Defendants Cannot Rely on “No Current Intention” Defence: Absence of immediate development plans does not defeat the need for clarity if past conduct indicates likely future action.

5. Rights to Light Cases Are About Certainty and Strategy: Property owners benefit from declarations that confirm their rights, especially in development-sensitive contexts.

6. Utility and Justice Drive Declaratory Decisions: Courts will act to ensure fairness and practical benefit in granting declaratory relief.

Conclusion - Rights to Light Case Law Pavledes v Hadjisavva

This case strengthens the legal position of claimants in rights to light disputes where neighbours have prevaricated or failed to give clear acknowledgments. It provides a valuable precedent for surveyors, developers, and property owners seeking strategic certainty in dense urban environments where light access is commercially critical.

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 HRKUK v Heaney

Rights to Light Case Law Coventry v Lawrence

Contact : Rights to Light Case Law Pavledes v Hadjisavva

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.