A retired couple who sued builders over a 17-storey tower that blocked mild to their house may now face a £3.7 million courtroom invoice – regardless of successful their case.
Stephen and Jennifer Powell mentioned that the Arbor tower, a part of the £2bn Bankside Yards growth on London’s South Bank, “substantially” diminished the pure mild entering into their Sixth-floor condominium within the next-door Bankside Lofts.
Bankside Yards is ultimately set to comprise eight towers, together with “mega-structures” 50 storeys excessive.
Arbor was the primary constructing accomplished, in September 2021.
The Powells and their Seventh-floor neighbour Kevin Cooper sought an injunction to guard their proper of sunshine and threatening the tower, which price practically £35m to construct, with probably being torn down.
Mr Justice Fancourt, ruling on the case on the High Court, mentioned that the couple’s flat was “substantially affected” by their mild being minimize off.
He ordered the co-developer of the location, Ludgate House Ltd, to pay the Powells £500,000 in damages, plus £350,000 to Mr Cooper.
But the house owners are actually going through a bid to make them pay the £3.7m authorized prices of the case as a result of choose having rejected their bid for an injunction requiring the tower to be demolished.
During the trial, the courtroom heard that the Powells have lived of their flat for over 20 years, while property finance skilled Mr Cooper purchased his Seventh-floor flat in 2021.
Their barrister, Tim Calland, informed Mr Justice Fancourt: “The Bankside Yards development will consist of eight towers, the tallest of which stretches to 50 storeys in height. The marketing material for Arbor describes it as a mega-structure and boasts of exceptional natural light.
“The claimants preserve that it will have been achieved – wrongfully – on the expense of their mild.
“Light is not an unnecessary ‘add on’ to a dwelling. Light does not just give pleasure, but provides the very benefits of health, wellbeing and productivity which the defendants are using to advertise the development.
“That is the explanation the claimants have introduced their claims.”
Mr Justice Fancourt went on to award damages to the Powells and Mr Cooper, saying that parts of the two flats had been left with levels of light “inadequate for the atypical use and delight of these rooms”.
But he refused the neighbours an injunction requiring Arbor to be altered or torn down, saying that over £200m would be wasted in demolishing and rebuilding the tower, with massive associated “environmental harm”.
That decision means that the Powells and Mr Cooper ought to now pay the massive costs of the case, John Mcghee KC, for the developer, argued in a fresh hearing this week.
He told the judge: “The claimants must be ordered to pay the defendant’s prices of the claims as a result of it was total the profitable celebration, having efficiently resisted the claimants’ declare for injunctive reduction.
“These claims were not about monetary compensation, but rather about whether the claimants could obtain an order requiring the defendant to modify its development so that the claimants would retain their light.
“The claimants didn’t obtain what was the ‘the aim of their claims’, which was to acquire injunctive reduction. Those claims had been dismissed.
“So far as the defendant was concerned too, the possibility of injunctive relief was its real concern in these proceedings. If injunctive relief was granted, the defendant would have been required to demolish part of Arbor at a cost of £15-20 million and incur a further £225 million in rebuilding.
“It is true that the claimants obtained an order for damages and curiosity amounting to £397,484.64, within the case of Mr Cooper, and £567,835.21, within the case of the Powells. But these sums, notably as to damages, had been fully aligned with the sums supplied by the defendant and solely a small fraction of the sum of £3.37 million sought by Mr Cooper and £3 million sought by the Powells.”
He mentioned the claims had been over-inflated and amounted to greater than thrice the worth of their respective flats.
“In actual life, the defendant is the winner on this litigation in that it might preserve and proceed with its growth unhampered by the claimants’ claims.
“The claimants are in reality the losers, having failed to achieve what was their stated sole purpose of bringing these claims in the first place.
“For these causes, the courtroom is invited to find out that the defendant was the profitable celebration and accordingly that the claimants ought to pay the defendant’s prices.”
The barrister added that the householders should pay 75 per cent of the developer’s costs if the judge found against his plea for them to foot the whole bill.
Tim Calland, for the neighbours, however disagreed, telling the judge: “Undoubtedly, the claimants are the profitable celebration within the litigation: the courtroom awarded them substantial sums in damages which, within the case of the Powells, exceeded the biggest sum ever earlier than awarded in a reported rights-of-light case and, within the case of Mr Cooper, matched it.
“The defendant may feel relief that an injunction was not ordered, but that does not make it the successful party. Its defence of the claim failed.
“Before this litigation, the defendant was solely prepared to supply the claimants book-value settlements. They needed to make these claims, which have been exceptionally hard-fought and costly, and to see them by way of to trial to ascertain and vindicate their rights.
“On any view, they have succeeded: in accordance with the general rule, the claimants should be awarded their costs.”
The builders are additionally arguing that Mr Cooper didn’t beat a proposal they made to settle his declare earlier than trial, however his attorneys are arguing that the provide was invalid in relation to prices penalties because it included issues that went past these being fought over within the litigation.
In refusing the injunction to demolish the tower in his judgment in 2025, the choose had mentioned: “The claimants say that an injunction is the right remedy to grant because the defendant has deliberately proceeded with its development in the face of the claimants’ rights, knowing that there was probably an infringement, and taking the chance that it would be able to buy off the claimants and all those in an equivalent position.
“The claimants are individuals who say that they’ve a specific and powerful attraction to the advantages of pure mild immediately from the sky, and are unwilling to see that mild taken away from them as a fait accompli.
“The position was, I am sure, exacerbated by … advertising the new development as having ‘exceptional levels of natural light’ that promote productivity and wellbeing, which Mr Cooper pointed out amounted to the developer helping itself to his light and offering a modest payment while intending to sell it to others for a high price.”
But he added: “There are strong arguments, in modern times, why over £200 million of development costs should not be wasted. There would also be substantial harm done by a further, complex demolition contract and considerable environmental damage as a result.
“Apart from the monetary curiosity of the developer, to which an order for demolition may very well be mentioned to be oppressive as compared with the diploma of hurt performed to the claimants, there’s a vital public curiosity that must be taken into consideration.”
The ruling on prices will now be given at a later date.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-bankside-yards-court-case-b2928721.html