The recent High Court decision in Cooper v Ludgate House Ltd and Powell v Ludgate House Ltd [2025] EWHC 1724 (Ch), widely referred to as the Bankside Case, marks a significant shift in the interpretation and valuation of Rights of Light (RoL) claims. For professionals advising developers, funders, and insurers, this judgement provides critical guidance – not only on legal remedies but also on assessing damages, surveying methodologies, and the role of s.203.
At Continuum Specialty, we have reviewed the case closely. Here are the key insights for those navigating the complex interface of property development and light rights.
Waldram Prevails, But Radiance Rises
One of the most anticipated elements was the court’s assessment of light loss methodologies. Despite growing use of radiance-based techniques such as MDI and MDF, the Court reaffirmed Waldram analysis as the primary standard. While the judge acknowledged radiance tools as useful in marginal cases, their reliance on “subjective interpretation of false colour images” limits their legal weight.
Key Takeaway for Surveyors: Continue leading with Waldram, but ensure familiarity with radiance techniques for context and where marginality requires enhanced analysis.
Injunction or Damages? A Fen Tigers Moment
The court declined to award an injunction, stating it would be “disproportionate” to the injury caused. However, the judge reiterated the flexible discretionary framework established in Fen Tigers, confirming that the burden of proof lies with defendants when arguing against injunctive relief.
For Lawyers and Brokers: Injunctive risk remains a live threat. Insurance remains an essential tool for protecting schemes where proportionality might be challenged in court.
Valuing Damages: Negotiation and Developer Gain
The court adopted a “negotiating damages” model – assessing the value uplift of the site had the full Arbor scheme been lawfully executed. The developer’s perceived £30 million gain was central, but the Claimants settled on a 10–15% share of this increase.
Although the Claimants attempted to apply a 90x multiplier to book value, damages were ultimately awarded at a lower, but not dissimilar, level. Expect claimants to cite this case as a justification for higher multipliers in future negotiations.
The Role of Section 203: What Light Should Be Counted?
A significant and complex question was whether light from the future “203 development” should be included in the baseline. The Court endorsed “Scenario CS1” – excluding unprotectable light from s.203 development. The rationale? Claimants had rights, but no way to enforce them.
Implication for Developers and Advisors: When s.203 resolutions are involved, baseline assessments must exclude such light. Surveyors and insurers must anticipate this approach when setting out risk profiles and policy coverage.
A Moment for Underwriters
The court’s approach to damages was pragmatic – focusing on real-world value rather than book values or abstract multipliers. For underwriters, this is both reassurance and a challenge: standard exposure models may need recalibration in light of this reasoning.
Strategic Insight: How Continuum Can Hel
At Continuum Specialty, we see the Bankside judgement as a benchmark for a more commercially realistic but legally nuanced approach to Rights of Light claims. As the court affirms discretion and context, our underwriters remain focused on flexibility, collaboration, and precision.
We work closely with legal advisors, brokers, and surveyors to structure insurance solutions that reflect both judicial thinking and market realities. Whether it’s negotiating risk around s.203 sites, adopting new assessment methodologies, or exploring staged premium structures, we enable developers to progress with confidence.