Handstone Investments Limited v Abri Group Limited

In an application for an interim injunction to restrain an alleged infringement of rights to light, damages may be an adequate remedy even where the claimant seeks to protect a proprietary right. The court must assess the loss likely to be suffered before trial and consider whether refusal of interim relief may make final injunctive relief more difficult to obtain. A claimant interested in property principally as an investment may ordinarily be compensated by damages for diminution in value. There should be no predisposition for or against an injunction. Public interest, delay, the stage of development and the absence of complaint by an occupier may also inform the balance of convenience, although those factors need not be determinative where damages are adequate.

Handstone Investments Limited applied for a prohibitory interim injunction restraining Abri Group Limited from continuing construction of a four-storey affordable-housing development adjoining the claimant’s building. The claimant alleged that the development would infringe rights to light acquired by prescription.

Abri accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried, including a serious issue as to whether permanent injunctive relief might be granted at trial. The principal dispute concerned whether damages would adequately compensate the claimant for interference occurring before trial, including any effect on the prospect of obtaining mandatory relief requiring alteration or demolition of the development.

1. Serious issue. The claimant had established a serious issue to be tried as to the existence and infringement of rights to light and the availability of permanent injunctive relief.
2. Adequacy of damages. The relevant question was whether, if the claimant ultimately established a right to a permanent injunction, damages would adequately compensate it for the loss caused by continuation of the works before trial. The defendant’s ability to pay damages was undisputed.
3. There was no automatic predisposition in favour of an injunction merely because a proprietary right was asserted. The court proceeded on the basis stated by Lord Neuberger in Lawrence v Fen Tigers Ltd [2014] AC 822 at [122], namely that there should be no inclination either way.
4. The claimant’s investment interest meant that diminution in the value of the building was capable of compensation in damages. The court also considered that continuation of the works might make final mandatory relief more difficult, but concluded that damages would nevertheless be adequate, particularly given the limited further works expected before an expedited trial and the defendant’s undertaking not to rely on those works as a reason to refuse mandatory relief.
5. The balance of convenience would in any event have favoured refusal of the injunction, having regard to the stage reached by the development, the public interest in affordable housing, the planning history, delay in bringing the matter to a head and the absence of a material complaint by the lessee. That issue was not the basis of the decision.
6. The interim injunction application was refused and appropriate directions for an expedited trial were ordered.