Pavledes & Anor v Hadjisavva & Anor

A declaration of rights does not require proof of an actual or imminent infringement. The court has a discretionary jurisdiction to declare present or future contested legal rights, provided the declaration concerns a real dispute between the parties. The relevant considerations include justice to each party, whether the declaration will serve a useful purpose, and any special reasons for granting or refusing relief. A claim may be premature or pointless, but the absence of an immediate threat is not itself decisive. Conditional admissions and undertakings may leave a dispute unresolved. Where a declaration would provide finality and remove continuing uncertainty, declaratory relief may be appropriate.

The claimants owned property benefiting from alleged rights of light over the defendants’ adjoining property. After prolonged correspondence, the defendants initially denied both the existence of the rights and any interference caused by their proposed development.

Before and after proceedings were issued, the defendants gave undertakings and made conditional admissions. They later decided not to proceed with the development for the foreseeable future and intended to let their property. The injunction claim was abandoned, but the claimants continued to seek a declaration as to their rights and the costs of the proceedings. The central issue was whether declaratory relief was appropriate despite the absence of an imminent infringement.

1. Declaratory jurisdiction. The jurisdiction to grant a declaration is statutory and is now exercised under Senior Courts Act 1981, s 19. Under CPR 40.20, the court may make a binding declaration whether or not any other remedy is claimed. The jurisdiction is discretionary and must be exercised according to general principles.
2. There must generally be a real and present dispute concerning the existence or extent of a legal right between the parties, although the right may be one which will arise in the future and the claimant need not have a present cause of action. The parties should generally be affected by the determination.
3. The requirement of an actual or imminent infringement applicable to a quia timet injunction does not apply as an absolute requirement to a declaration. Nevertheless, the court may refuse declaratory relief if the claim is premature or the declaration would serve no useful purpose.
4. In exercising the discretion, the court should consider justice to the claimant, justice to the defendant, whether the declaration would serve a useful purpose, and any other special reasons for or against granting it.
5. The earlier dispute had not been resolved by the defendants’ conditional admissions and undertakings. Those assurances were expressly dependent on the accuracy of the claimants’ technical analysis, limited to the foreseeable future, and given without admission of the claimants’ rights. The defendants therefore retained the ability to revive their previous position.
6. Against that background, a declaration would provide justice, finality and practical utility. The defendants’ five-year letting did not require the claimants to wait until a sale, an early surrender, or renewed development became imminent. A declaration was accordingly granted. The parties were invited to agree its terms, failing which further submissions would be required.