Redevelopment and third party rights: premature application for declaration / injunction. Avoiding acquiescence

CIP Property (AIPT) Ltd v Transport for London ([2012] EWHC 259) concerned a proposed development above Tottenham Court Road underground station in London. Aviva owned nearby property and claimed that the proposed redevelopment would infringe the rights of light to which it was entitled (as ancient lights or easements acquired under the Prescription Act 1832 or the doctrine of lost modern grant). (Note that it was decided in China Field Ltd v Appeal Tribunal (Buildings) (No 2) that the doctrine of lost modern grant applies in Hong Kong).

Aviva had asked for an acceptance by D that it had rights of light that would be affected by the development. D refused to give this acceptance but confirmed that any redevelopment would respect third party rights. Aviva sought a declaration that it had the claimed rights of light and an injunction restraining any development that would constitute an actionable interference with them. D argued that the application was premature.

The court agreed that it was premature to entertain an application for either of the remedies sought. D did not yet even own the development site. Planning permission had only just been applied for and would take years to obtain (so the details of the development work were unknown). D had given assurances that it would respect third party rights. Aviva could not claim that a failure to give the assurances it had sought amounted to an imminent threat to its claimed rights.

As for the fear that silence might result in a later finding that it had acquiesced in any development and had lost its rights:

‘It will be up to Aviva through its solicitors to ensure that the third defendant is aware at all material times of Aviva’s concerns.’ ([39]).

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Redevelopment and third party rights: premature application for declaration / injunction. Avoiding acquiescence”

  1. Calvin Says:

    would like to ask the following:-

    if A grants B an easement to use part of the land. For example, to build a bridge. Could A still occupy the land or make use of the land?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: