Cases - Pugh v Howells

Record details

Name
Pugh v Howells
Date
[1984]
Citation
48 P&CR 298
Legislation
Keywords
Rights of light - infringement - extent to which the defendant's conduct should be taken into account to decide whether to grant an injunction or award damages - injunction - whether a mandatory injunction should be granted
Summary

The plaintiffs and defendants owned adjoining properties. In 1981, the defendants obtained planning permission to build an extension to their property. The plaintiffs objected to the planning application and thereafter wrote stating that the extension would infringe their rights of light and that, if the defendants went ahead, they would have no alternative but to apply for an injunction. The following year, the defendants were advised by a chartered surveyor that the proposed extension would interfere with the plaintiffs' right of light to their kitchen. In April 1983, the plaintiffs noticed that the defendants were pulling down a lean-to and their solicitors therefore wrote to the defendants asking them to disclose any plans. The defendants made an unhelpful reply. A further letter sent to the defendants by recorded delivery was returned by the defendants marked 'not accepted'. Before the plaintiffs could take further action, there was a bank holiday weekend. During this weekend, the defendants' builders returned and built the extension up to roof level. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiffs started court proceedings, claiming a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to take down the extension so that it did not interfere with their rights of light. The judge held that although there was an actionable nuisance, damages would be a more appropriate remedy. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Court of Appeal reversed the judge's decision, granting the plaintiffs a mandatory injunction. It referred to the House of Lords' decision in Shelfer, saying that a court needed not just to look at the working rule, but also what the House of Lords had said about the conduct of the parties. It was clear in this case that, where the defendants had been warned more than once that what they were doing would be resisted by an application to court, wherein spite of the warnings and in spite of advice from their own surveyor, they carried on and took the risk of building, they could not complain if the result was that they were ordered to pull down part of the building. The Court of Appeal considered that the plaintiffs' conduct was perfectly reasonable: as soon as they saw the lean-to coming down, they asked for information. However, the defendants acted unreasonably and high-handedly: their response to the first letter was unhelpful, they refused to accept delivery of the second letter and they went ahead with the work over a bank holiday weekend, leaving the strong impression that they were hurrying on with the work to try to achieve a fait accompli before the plaintiffs could challenge them in court. In addition, the defendants had not satisfied the working rule in Shelfer. The injury was not small, it was difficult to say that it could adequately be compensated in damages and, having regard to the conduct of the defendants, it would not be oppressive to grant an injunction. A mandatory injunction was therefore awarded requiring the defendants to remove the part of the extension above ground floor level.