HKRUK II (CHC) Ltd v Heaney

HKRUK II (CHC) Ltd v Heaney

The injury to the defendant's rights was not small, the infringement was deliberate and for profit, and the defendant should not be compelled to accept monetary compensation. The claimant failed to satisfy the Shelfer criteria for substituting damages for an injunction. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to a mandatory injunction.

Parties
Claimant: HKRUK II (CHC) Limited; Defendant: Marcus Alexander Heaney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Mandatory injunction granted in favour of the defendant.
Legal Topics
Easements, Rights of Light, Nuisance, Remedies (injunction/damages)
Property Law Tort Law Easements Rights of Light Nuisance Remedies (injunction/damages)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKRUK II (CHC) Limited

Claimant

Marcus Alexander Heaney

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to a mandatory injunction or damages for actionable interference with rights of light
  2. 2 How damages should be quantified if awarded instead of an injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The injury to the defendant's rights was not small, the infringement was deliberate and for profit, and the defendant should not be compelled to accept monetary compensation. The claimant failed to satisfy the Shelfer criteria for substituting damages for an injunction. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to a mandatory injunction.

Court Disposition

Mandatory injunction granted in favour of the defendant.

Orders

  • The terms of the injunction and costs to be determined after further submissions by counsel.