The light in the living room would be reduced from 67% to  42%-45%. The judges did not consider this to be a ‘small injury’  to the living room, considering that to enjoy adequate light, he  would either have to rely on artificial light or move to a part of  the room near a window.
Although the injury was capable of being estimated in money,  the adequacy to compensate by a small money payment  was rejected.
As to whether the injection was oppressive to the developer,  even though this would place a significant burden of cost and  delay onto the developer, the Court of Appeal held that those  factors are not determinative of the issue of oppressiveness  and of the choice of remedy. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and to grant an injunction. This confirmed that with residential injuries, injunctions are an appropriate remedy.
The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and to grant an injunction. This confirmed that with residential injuries, injunctions are an appropriate remedy.