Rights to Light Case Law Tamares v Fairpoint

The Rights to Light Case Law Tamares v Fairpoint Properties (2006) in the High Court is a significant contribution to the legal landscape of rights to light in England and Wales.

This detailed summary analyses the facts, legal arguments, judicial reasoning, and implications of the case, optimised for the SEO keyphrase "Rights to Light Case Law Tamares v Fairpoint".

Background to the Dispute

Tamares, the claimant, owned an office building in Westminster known as the Olsen Building. Fairpoint, the defendant, was developing the adjacent site, formerly the Rochester Row Magistrates Court and Police Station.

As part of its redevelopment, Fairpoint constructed a three-storey, T-shaped building. Tamares alleged that the new structure interfered with the light received by four ground-floor windows on the Olsen Building: two in the entrance lobby and two lighting a staircase leading to the basement.

The Three Core Issues

The court had to determine:

1. Whether the claimant had acquired rights to light for each of the four windows.

2. If such rights existed, whether the new development caused a legal injury or actionable nuisance.

3. If the defendant committed an actionable infringement, the court had to decide whether to award the claimant an injunction or only damages.

1. Were Rights to Light Acquired?

The most contentious issue was whether the entrance lobby windows, blocked internally by opaque wooden panelling for over 20 years, had accrued a right to light through prescription under section 3 of the Prescription Act 1832.

Tamares argued that light passing through the external windowpane and illuminating the back of the wooden panelling constituted "actual enjoyment".

However, Mr G Moss QC (sitting as Deputy Judge) rejected this claim. Relying on Smith v. Baxter [1900] and Cooper v. Straker (1888), the court held that light blocked for the entirety of the 20-year period could not constitute "actual enjoyment".

The key point was that the dominant landowner must use the light in a meaningful way, not simply allow it to strike a barrier.

The court distinguished the internal arrangement rule—which allows a right to light to remain unaffected by internal configurations after its acquisition—from the separate threshold question of whether a person can acquire such a right in the first place.

The internal arrangement rule recognises that once a person establishes a right to light, their internal layout—such as partitions, furniture, or room usage—does not limit the scope of that right.

However, this rule does not affect the initial acquisition of the right, as the claimant must satisfy the statutory requirement under section 3 of the Prescription Act 1832 by actually enjoying access to and use of light for at least 20 years.

In the present case, the entrance lobby windows had been fully blocked on the inside for the entirety of that period by opaque panelling. As a result, the court concluded that no meaningful use or enjoyment of the incoming light had taken place, thereby preventing the acquisition of any easement.

This distinction between acquisition and scope is critical in rights to light cases, and failure to establish actual enjoyment renders the internal arrangement rule irrelevant.

By contrast, the staircase windows were unobstructed and used to admit natural light. The court held that these windows had acquired a prescriptive right to light.

2. Was There an Actionable Infringement?

The test for infringement, as stated in Colls v. Home and Colonial Stores Ltd (1904), is whether there has been a "substantial deprivation" of light sufficient to render the use of the premises uncomfortable.

This test goes beyond a mere reduction in the quantity of light; it focuses on whether the interference materially impacts the practical use and enjoyment of the space in question.

The courts have consistently held that to constitute a legal nuisance, the loss of light must significantly impair ordinary use, such as making rooms unfit for their intended purpose or rendering activities within them uncomfortable or unsafe without artificial lighting.

The determination of what is 'substantial' is ultimately a matter of fact and degree, often guided by expert evidence, site inspections, and the judge's own assessment of usability, safety, and the expectations of reasonable occupiers.

With regard to the staircase windows:

Expert evidence revealed a redistribution and reduction in light, particularly affecting the treads of the basement stairs.

The court agreed that this created a "real injury" as it made the stairs more hazardous to use without artificial lighting.

However, the impact on the entrance lobby windows (assuming a right existed) was found to be negligible. The lobby was already receiving abundant natural light from other sources, notably Vincent Square.

Speculative alternative uses, such as turning the lobby into a bathroom or partitioning it to create new rooms, were dismissed as unfounded and lacking evidential basis.

3. Remedies: Injunction or Damages?

The claimant sought a mandatory injunction requiring demolition of part of Fairpoint's completed structure.

The court applied the Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Co. (1895) criteria for substituting damages in place of an injunction:

The injury is small.

It can be quantified in money.

It can be adequately compensated.

It would be oppressive to grant an injunction.

Mr Moss QC held that all four conditions were met. The interference with light in the staircase area was minor, and the court considered financial compensation to be adequate. A demolition would impose disproportionate hardship on the developer.

The court also referred to Jaggard v. Sawyer [1995] 1 WLR 269, a key authority on equitable remedies. In that case, the Court of Appeal emphasised that although a claimant with a legal right is prima facie entitled to injunctive relief, the court retains discretion to grant or withhold such relief.

One notable principle from Jaggard is that if a claimant delays in seeking interlocutory (interim) relief—such as an injunction to stop construction before it is completed—they risk the court refusing to grant a final injunction at trial.

The rationale is that courts are often reluctant to impose a mandatory injunction that would require demolishing an already-completed or nearly-complete structure, especially when the harm can be adequately addressed through damages and the developer acted in good faith.

In such scenarios, a fait accompli has arisen, and the balance of convenience and proportionality may favour monetary compensation instead of structural alteration or removal.

The defendant’s conduct was also considered. Fairpoint had:

Sought early expert advice, instructing a rights to light surveyor before finalising its design. This demonstrated an intention to understand and mitigate legal risk rather than proceed recklessly.

Attempted to negotiate with the previous owner of the Olsen Building, even offering a financial settlement for the increased massing of the proposed development. Although negotiations fell through, this effort showed willingness to resolve matters amicably.

Built based on a good-faith belief that no infringement existed. Their belief was grounded in professional advice, and internal records showed they intended to stay within parameters that avoided actionable interference with neighbouring light rights.

Continued development despite receiving a solicitor’s warning letter. While this could have been viewed negatively, the court noted that Fairpoint's response, including reference to their assessment and design adjustments, supported the view that they genuinely believed they were not causing an actionable injury.

These factors, particularly the proactive steps taken and reliance on expert guidance, weighed significantly against the grant of a mandatory injunction. The court concluded that forcing demolition in light of such good-faith conduct would be oppressive and disproportionate.

Key Takeaways: Rights to Light Case Law Tamares v Fairpoint

Prescription Requires Actual Enjoyment: Blocking windows internally for the entire 20-year period prevents rights to light from accruing, even if light reaches the back of an obstruction.

Substantial Interference is Needed: Courts will not find actionable interference unless the reduction of light is sufficient to cause real inconvenience in ordinary use.

Speculative Use is Insufficient: Hypothetical alternative room uses do not support claims of injury unless supported by evidence of realistic and likely future configurations.

Damages over Injunctions: The Shelfer test remains a guiding principle in determining when damages can be awarded instead of injunctions, particularly where developments are near completion and the injury is minimal.

Conduct Matters: The good-faith actions of the developer in obtaining expert advice and engaging with neighbours weigh against punitive remedies like demolition.

Timing is Critical: A claimant who delays action risks losing the right to injunctive relief. Failure to seek interlocutory relief can turn a potential success into a loss at final trial.

Conclusion : Rights to Light Case Law Tamares v Fairpoint

The rights to light case law of Tamares v Fairpoint is a robust reminder of how common law principles surrounding rights to light interact with modern urban development.

It reinforces that courts are willing to take a pragmatic approach, balancing equitable rights with real-world consequences. This judgment underscores the importance of careful planning, early legal advice, and timely enforcement in rights to light disputes.

This analysis forms part of our continuing series on UK property law and development rights.

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 HKRUK v Heaney

Rights to Light Case Law Coventry v Lawrence

Contact : Rights to Light Case Law Tamares v Fairpoint

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.