Is negotiation the best course of action in development disputes, asks Christopher Stoner QC
A startling aspect of the facts in HKRUK II (CHC) Limited v Heaney [2010] EWHC 2245 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 101 (Sep) and in Jacklin v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2007] EWCA Civ 181, [2007] All ER (D) 212 (Feb), which was applied in the former case, was the ability of a party whose property rights had been infringed (the landowner) to obtain mandatory injunctions notwithstanding significant delay and inactivity on their part in seeking relief.
In Heaney the landowner only sought relief by way of a counterclaim in circumstances where having completed its development (and let one of the two newly constructed floors to a third party) the developer sought declaratory relief to the effect it was free of the landowner’s rights.
The factual narrative in the judgment of HHJ Peter Langan QC reveals that, aware that Heaney’s rights of light would be infringed by its proposed development, the developer first wrote to him in
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
