In a long-awaited decision, the case of Beaumont Business Centres Limited Vs Florala Properties Limited resulted in an injunction against a completed and let development.
Delva Patman Redler’s Alistair Redler outlines the Key points:
- 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.