Does A Long Leaseholder Have A Right To Release A Right To Light?

This case considered whether a compensation payment to release a right to light should be paid to the freeholder or long leaseholder.

The Facts

RMC was the freeholder and Metropolitan was the lessee of a block of 20 flats at Royal Mint Street, London E1. The north elevation of the block had a number of windows which benefited from light which passed over land to the north of Royal Mint Street and across the street itself. On the north side of Royal Mint Street and directly opposite the block of flats was a development site. The owners of that site obtained planning permission for the construction of a substantial mixed-use development, comprising 354 residential units, a 236-room hotel with 33 serviced apartments and various other uses including retail, leisure and community uses. The owners of the development site commenced the development of the site.

Both RMC and Metropolitan took the view that they each enjoyed the benefit of a right to light to the windows in the north elevation of the block over the development site. RMC and Metropolitan each took the view that the development would when completed give rise to an actionable interference with the use and enjoyment of light to the block.

Metropolitan brought proceedings seeking a declaration that it was entitled to release the right to light in exchange for compensation to be paid by the developer. RMC contended that Metropolitan would commit a breach of the headlease if it were to agree to a release of the right to light.

In the headlease RMC had agreed as follows:

"Encroachment

Not to give permission for any new window light opening doorway path passage drain or other encroachment to be made nor to permit any easement to be acquired upon or against the demised premises which might be or grow to the damage annoyance or inconvenience of the landlord and in case any such encroachment or easement shall be made or attempted to be made or acquired or attempted to be acquired to give immediate notice in writing to the Landlord and at the request and cost of the Landlord to adopt such means as may be reasonably required or deemed proper for preventing the making of such encroachment or the acquisition of such easement".

Submissions

RMC contended:

The right to light was part of "the demised premises"; An interference with the right to light by the developer would be "an encroachment" upon or against the demised premises; Such an encroachment by the developer "might be or grow to the damage...