000			02110cab a2200265 4500
001			##L134918
008			060911n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u134918
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aDennis Regan v Paul Properties DPF No 1 Ltd and others
260			_c2006
520			_a[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.
590			_aIKA190906
650	2	4	_aREGAN V PAUL PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS
650	2	4	_aCOLLS V HOME AND COLONIAL STORES 1904
650	2	4	_aFISHENDEN V HIGGS AND HILLS LTD
650	2	4	_aDEAKINS V HOOKINGS
650	2	4	_aCARR-SAUNDERS V DICK MCNEIL ASSOCIATES LTD
650	2	4	_aKINE V JOLLY
650	2	4	_aSHELFER V CITY OF LONDON ELECTRIC LIGHTING CO LTD 1895
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY MANAGEMENT-EASEMENTS-RIGHTS TO LIGHT DETERMINATION
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2006/1941.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c77710 _d77710