[2006] EWHC 1941 (Ch), 27 July 2006. Concerns whether an injunction or an award of damages was the appropriate remedy for the infringement of a claimant's right to light. R claimed injunctions and damages against P for an infringement of R's rights to light. P had constructed a five-storey building opposite R's home. Whereas P's surveyor had failed to detect any effect from the development on the daylight entering R's home, R's surveyor concluded that R's sitting room had suffered a 23% reduction in light. The loss in value to R's property was estimated at £5 000 whereas an adequate scaling-back in P's development would cost about £40 000. P contended that there was no established rule that where a room became less than 50% well lit a nuisance existed. R submitted that an injunction was the default position once an infringement had been found. "Held": judgment in part for claimant. An award of damages rather than an injunction was the appropriate remedy where a claimant's right to light had only been moderately infringed, the claimant could be compensated adequately by a small money payment and an injunction would have been oppressive to the defendant.