Rights to Light Case Law – Regan v Paul

Rights to Light Case Law – Regan v Paul has become a touchstone in English property law, particularly for surveyors, property litigators, and developers involved in disputes over natural light. The case encapsulates many of the legal, practical, and moral tensions between private property rights and the interests of urban development.

The key issue in Regan v Paul [2006] was not whether a right to light had been infringed—it had—but what the appropriate remedy should be: damages or a mandatory injunction.

The High Court opted for damages. The Court of Appeal overturned this and granted a mandatory injunction, setting a precedent that reinforced the sanctity of property rights, even against the tide of commercial interest.

Below is a detailed look at the facts, the legal principles, and the significance of the case.

Background to the Dispute

Mr. Dennis Regan, a building contractor, lived in a maisonette at 8 Zion Gardens, Brighton, which fronted Queen’s Road.

The maisonette's first-floor living room overlooked a site on the opposite side of the road where Paul Properties, a development partnership, began construction of a five-storey mixed-use building at 126–128 Queen’s Road.

Prior to the development, the site contained two and three-storey buildings in a dilapidated state. When Paul Properties obtained planning permission to replace them with a five-storey building comprising 16 units (14 residential and 2 commercial), Mr. Regan was unaware of the full extent of the plans.

It wasn’t until construction began in March 2005 that Mr. Regan realised the extent to which his property would be affected. Upon further investigation, he learned that the development had been permitted without any consideration given to the impact on his rights to light. He subsequently instructed a rights to light surveyor, Mr. Michael Ney.

Mr. Ney’s analysis found that the development would reduce the well-lit area of Mr. Regan’s living room from 65–67% down to 42–45%, falling well below the accepted 50% benchmark used in rights to light assessments under the Waldram method.

Despite Mr. Regan’s repeated objections and the apparent evidence of actionable interference, the developer continued construction, including the shell of the top-floor penthouse (Unit 16), which caused the majority of the obstruction.

The Legal Claim

Mr. Regan issued proceedings in March 2006, seeking an injunction and damages. He was not motivated by compensation; instead, he wanted enforcement of his property rights.

At the heart of his legal argument was the principle of "ancient lights", a form of easement protecting long-established windows from material reductions in daylight.

The legal test, as set out in Colls v Home and Colonial Stores Ltd [1904], is whether the interference makes the room significantly less fit for use, judged by the "ordinary notions of mankind".

The High Court Decision

At trial in the High Court (Chancery Division), Mr Regan successfully demonstrated that there had been a material and actionable loss of light. Judge Stephen Smith QC accepted that the impact on the living room was significant. The affected area was right in the middle of the room, limiting its use for everyday activities like reading, writing, dressmaking, and model-making. The family would now have to use artificial light or cluster near the window—losing both practicality and privacy.

Despite finding in Mr Regan's favour on liability, the judge refused to grant a mandatory injunction. Instead, he awarded damages in lieu, reasoning that the injury, though actionable, was small, quantifiable in money, and could be adequately compensated. Importantly, he considered it oppressive to order partial demolition of Unit 16, given the disruption and cost to the developer.

In applying the Shelfer test (from Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co), the judge concluded:

The injury was relatively minor.

It could be calculated in money terms (estimated at £5,500).

Compensation would suffice.

An injunction would be disproportionate and oppressive.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal

Mr. Regan appealed solely on the issue of remedy. He argued that the High Court had erred in law by:

Misapplying the Shelfer criteria.

Placing the burden of proof on him to show why damages were not enough.

Failing to appreciate that injunction should be the default remedy where a right is infringed.

The Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Mummery, Tuckey, and Wilson) unanimously allowed the appeal. Lord Justice Mummery delivered the leading judgment.

Key Findings in the Appeal Judgment

1. Mandatory Injunction is the Starting Point

The Court reaffirmed that where a legal right is infringed, an injunction is the presumptive remedy. The burden should not be placed on the claimant to justify why they should not be forced to accept damages. The High Court had “acted on a wrong principle of law.”

2. Loss Was Not Minor

Although the High Court deemed the injury small because it affected only part of the room, the Court of Appeal disagreed. It emphasised:

The amount of light left, not just lost, is what matters.

A drop from 67% to 42–45% was substantial, not trivial.

The infringement materially affected how the room could be used.

3. Damages Were Inadequate

While the loss was estimated at £5,000–£5,500 in property value, that was not the only measure. The court found this figure underestimated the actual impact, especially considering that Mr. Regan had never sought money, only enforcement of his right.

4. Conduct of the Developer

Although not deemed “oppressive” by the High Court, the Appeal Court viewed the developer’s conduct as reckless. The defendants:

Proceeded with building despite explicit warnings.

Relied on limited or flawed expert advice.

Made no effort to redesign the scheme after Mr. Regan objected.

They chose to continue construction at their own risk, and could not later argue that complying with the law would cause them disproportionate harm.

5. Court Must Not Legalise Wrongdoing

The Court echoed long-standing legal principles : wrongdoers are not entitled to “purchase” their way out of obligations. To allow damages in place of injunctions by default would effectively legalise infringements of private rights.

The Outcome

The Court of Appeal granted a mandatory injunction, requiring the developer to cut back Unit 16 so as to restore sufficient light to Mr Regan’s property.

The parties were invited to agree on the precise wording and implementation of the injunction, but the principle was settled: compensation was not enough in this case.

Key Takeaways from Right to Light Case Law : Regan v Paul

1. Enforceability of Rights to Light

Rights to light are not symbolic—they are enforceable, even when doing so disrupts profitable development.

2. Mandatory Injunctions Are Backed by Law

Despite a recent trend toward monetary settlements, in Regan v Paul the courts reaffirmed that injunctions are the default remedy for infringement—particularly where property owners object early and clearly.

3. Shelfer Test Still Stands—but Must Be Applied Correctly

The Shelfer case provides a “good working rule” but does not create a hard barrier to injunctions. A judge must weigh all circumstances, not just property values.

4. Developers Proceed at Their Own Risk

When faced with a potential rights to light claim, proceeding with construction without resolving the issue is a gamble. Courts will not protect those who act prematurely.

5. Planning Permission is Not a Defence

Having planning permission does not override private rights, such as easements for light.

Final Thoughts : Right to Light Case Law Regan v Paul

Regan v Paul is now one of the most cited modern cases on rights to light in England and Wales. It demonstrates that individual homeowners can—and should—defend their rights, even against well-financed developers.

For surveyors and legal professionals, the case is a reminder to assess rights to light early, and for developers, it is a warning: respect neighbours’ rights or risk having to rebuild.

Rights to Law Case Law - Resources

Rights to Light Fact Sheet

What is a Right to Light

Contact : Right to Light Case Law Regan v Paul

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.