Cases - Deakins v Hookings
Record details
- Name
- Deakins v Hookings
- Date
- [1994]
- Citation
- 1 EGLR 190
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Rights of light - infringement - 50/50 rule - injunction - use of room - amount of damages to be awarded instead of an injunction - whether there had been an actionable infringement - whether a mandatory injunction should be granted
- Summary
-
This case revolved around a claim for interference with light to a residential house in Wimbledon, London SW19. The obstruction was caused by the erection of a neighbouring extension.
The court asked the following questions:
(1) Had there been an actionable interference to the claimant's rooms from the extension?
(2) If there was such interference, what was the proper remedy?
It was found that there had indeed been actionable interference - made worse by the fact that some of the rooms were already badly lit before the new extension was built.
A mandatory injunction was ordered for the removal of the infringing parts of the extension. The judge ruled that if that decision was overruled on appeal, then 15% of the net value (enhancement) derived by the defendant from the extension should be awarded as damages in lieu of the injunction, that being a sum of £4,500 (15% of £30,000).
This judgment reiterated that the 50/50 rule was not a rigid test. The court would need to assess the practical impact on the room affected and even the use of that part of the room where light was being reduced.