Encroaching Darkness – An Intriguing Case On Rights To Light

In Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited v. RMC FH Co Limited [2017] EWHC 2609 (Ch) the High Court looked at the issue of whether a long leaseholder had the right to release a development site from a right to light. The court held that the long leaseholder was prevented by the terms of the lease from granting the release. The case marks a controversial change in the approach to considering a tenant's ability to release its rights in respect of its leasehold interest in premises and will prompt developers to think very carefully about who needs to be party to any releases.

Background

RMC owns the freehold of a property on Royal Mint Street in east London (the Property). Metropolitan is the long leaseholder of the Property by virtue of a lease granted in 1987 (the Lease). Shortly after the Lease was granted, Metropolitan constructed a block of flats on the Property.

The dispute in this case arose out of proposals by a third party to develop a site on the opposite side of the road to the Property (the Development Site). Both RMC and Metropolitan anticipated that the development would interfere with a right to light enjoyed by the Property over the Development Site (and which had been acquired after the grant of the lease to Metropolitan). Metropolitan, however, in exchange for monetary compensation, wanted to release to the owners of the Development Site the right to light appurtenant to Metropolitan's leasehold interest.

RMC did not want Metropolitan to grant the release.

RMC's principal argument was that Metropolitan was prevented from granting the release by clause 3(12) in the Lease:

"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".

The decision

The court held that Metropolitan was indeed prevented from granting the release by virtue of clause 3(12) for the following reasons:

Did the right of light form part of the demised premises? Yes

At the time the...