| Topic: | Re:13 storeys for Capsticks and Carlton Court | |
| Posted by: | Roland Gilmore | |
| Date/Time: | 23/12/10 12:54:00 |
| Heaney v Highcross. The scheme in question consisted of the refurbishment of a five storey building with the addition of two further stories by Highcross. The objection of Heaney was that the additional stories would cause an actionable infringement of the rights of light enjoyed by his property. It's also worth reviewing the ruling in the 2006, case of Regan v Paul Properties in which the Court of Appeal re-emphasised that the primary remedy for breach of a property right is an injunction and not damages. The significance of Heaney v Highcross is that the judge decided it would be wholly wrong to allow Hihcross to keep the existing scheme in return for the payment of compensation. It's hard to imagine that the additional stories proposed for this development will not cause an actionable infringement to someone's right. |