Lost modern grant leveraged to deliver high six-figure outcome for a non-profit

Our client is a non-profit organisation occupying a community hub in a regional city. A private developer constructed a multi-storey extension on the adjoining plot and, crucially, failed to address our client’s rights of light at any stage. The new structure created significant daylight losses to key meeting rooms and workspaces. Given the community use and the extent of the shadowing, the risk of an actionable interference was clear.

We needed to confirm that our client had acquired rights of light through long use and that the interference crossed the actionable threshold. The focus was on acquisition by prescription under the doctrine of lost modern grant, based on more than 20 years’ uninterrupted enjoyment as of right, and on securing the appropriate remedy, either removal of the offending structure by injunction or a settlement reflecting the true commercial leverage of an injunction claim.

We instructed specialist rights of light surveyors to model pre- and post-development conditions and to analyse adequacy using accepted professional methods. Their work demonstrated actionable losses to defined apertures serving primary rooms, consistent with how rights of light are assessed in practice.

Legally, we confirmed prescriptive acquisition under lost modern grant and prepared proceedings seeking an injunction requiring removal of the infringing mass. In line with modern authority, we made it plain that, while damages in lieu are sometimes awarded, an injunction remains a real outcome where a developer has chosen to build in the face of an established right, particularly where they have not engaged or offered safeguards. This framed negotiations around the true risk profile rather than a nominal book-value payment.  

Despite extensive correspondence, the developer did not offer adequate undertakings. We issued promptly to protect our client’s position and sought interim relief. This litigation posture created the right incentives for a serious commercial discussion, supported by clear expert evidence on light loss and a robust statement of claim on acquisition and remedy.  

Through coordinated legal and technical input, we kept the focus on three anchors. First, rights of light protect sufficient natural illumination to rooms through defined apertures, not a view. Second, long enjoyment can establish the right without any express grant. Third, where an actionable interference is proven, the court has a discretion between injunction and damages in lieu, which carries material risk for a developer who ignored the right at the design and build stages.

The matter settled before the injunction hearing. Our client achieved a high six-figure payment and the developer agreed targeted mitigation works to improve internal daylight performance. The settlement value reflected the credible prospect of structural removal and the litigation risk the developer had created by neglecting the right. For a non-profit, this was transformative, funding service upgrades across the hub while preserving day-to-day operations.

This case shows how a clear lost modern grant route, tight expert evidence, and timely issue of proceedings can unlock real value where a developer has not dealt with rights of light. Even for third-sector occupiers, a well prepared and assertive strategy can deliver outcomes far beyond baseline compensation models, because the leverage comes from the remedy you can credibly obtain, not just the quantum models alone.