What was relevant was whether there was a nuisance, a financial loss in this case, to the dominant owner
The principal legal burden is for the developer to show why the injunction should not be granted.
The court also decided the appropriate damages sum. Beaumont can accept the damages instead of enforcing the injunction.
This is important, because it stops the grant of injunction from creating a ransom position.
The “book value” method of valuation was not even considered by the court.
Damages based on actual loss to the neighbour were considered but were not appropriate.
Damages were a share of the profit of the part of the development causing the rol injury. It was again 1/3 of profit with only minor adjustment. It still has to “feel right”.
Radiance was considered but the Waldram method was preferred. The dominant owner has no right to have external reflected light maintained, or be obliged to maintain existing internal reflectance.
This will strengthen the position of neighbours in rol negotiations and lead to higher settlements based on loss of profit.
