HKRUK II (CHC) Ltd v Heaney [2010] EWHC 2245 (Ch) (03 September 2010)

HKRUK II (CHC) Ltd v Heaney [2010] EWHC 2245 (Ch) (03 September 2010)

The injury to the defendant's rights was not small, could not be adequately compensated by a small money payment, and the infringement was deliberate and profit-driven. The claimant failed to satisfy the cumulative Shelfer criteria to displace the defendant's prima facie right to an injunction. Accordingly, a mandatory injunction was granted requiring the claimant to remove the offending works.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2245 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: HKRUK II (CHC) LIMITED; Defendant: Marcus Alexander Heaney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
mandatory injunction granted
Legal Topics
Rights of Light, Injunctions, Damages in Lieu of Injunction, Nuisance, Remedies
Property Law Tort Law Rights of Light Injunctions Damages in Lieu of Injunction Nuisance Remedies

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKRUK II (CHC) LIMITED

Claimant

Marcus Alexander Heaney

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / First Instance Judgment

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 in lieu of an injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The injury to the defendant's rights was not small, could not be adequately compensated by a small money payment, and the infringement was deliberate and profit-driven. The claimant failed to satisfy the cumulative Shelfer criteria to displace the defendant's prima facie right to an injunction. Accordingly, a mandatory injunction was granted requiring the claimant to remove the offending works.

Court Disposition

mandatory injunction granted

Orders

  • Claimant required to remove the offending parts of the development that interfere with the defendant's rights of light.