Tamares (Vincent Square) Ltd v. Fairpoint Properties (Vincent Square) Ltd
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [2006] 41 EG 226Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Summary: ChD, 4 September 2006. The claimant owned an office building and contended that it was affected by the development of an adjoining property in terms of access to light. Two entrance lobby windows which had been boarded up for 20 years were included as well as two basement windows which illuminated a stairwell. "Held": it was decided that the interference with light to the two basement windows was an actionable nuisance but that the boarding up of the two entrance lobby windows meant that no right to light had been acquired to them. Damages were awarded but not the grant of a mandatory injunction. Applying the rule in "Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co Ltd" (No 1) [1895] 1 Ch 287, the injury was small and could be estimated in, and compensated by, a monetary payment.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L136179 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 136179-1001 |
ChD, 4 September 2006. The claimant owned an office building and contended that it was affected by the development of an adjoining property in terms of access to light. Two entrance lobby windows which had been boarded up for 20 years were included as well as two basement windows which illuminated a stairwell. "Held": it was decided that the interference with light to the two basement windows was an actionable nuisance but that the boarding up of the two entrance lobby windows meant that no right to light had been acquired to them. Damages were awarded but not the grant of a mandatory injunction. Applying the rule in "Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co Ltd" (No 1) [1895] 1 Ch 287, the injury was small and could be estimated in, and compensated by, a monetary payment.