UK: Timing Is Everything And Patience Is Key

Last Updated: 19 July 2012
Article by Richard Flenley

A lesson in waiting for a right to crystallise rather than commencing premature and toothless proceedings was handed down by the High Court in the rights to light case of CIP Property (AIPT) Ltd -v- Transport For London, London Underground Ltd, Derwent Valley Central Ltd [2012] EWHC 259

The Facts

The Second and Third Defendants to the action, Transport for London ("TFL") and London Underground Limited ("London Underground") together owned the land on the south-west corner of Oxford Street and Charing Cross Road comprising, amongst other premises, Tottenham Court Road Underground Station ("the Station").

The Station is being redeveloped as part of the Crossrail project and it is envisaged that, once the development has been completed in 2017, there will then be oversite developments across a range of Underground stations which will include the Station. The third defendant, Derwent Valley Central Ltd ("Derwent"), may be appointed as the developer for these oversite developments.

The Claimant, CIP Property (AIPT) Ltd ("CIP"), is a limited company in the Aviva Investors Group and is the nominee of Aviva to be the trustee of its Aviva Investors Property Trust. In that capacity, CIP is the freehold owner of 20 Soho Square and 5 Falconberg Mews ("the Properties"). The Properties overlook the Station and are subject to five occupational leases. CIP claimed that the Properties benefitted from one or more of ancient rights of light, easements of light acquired by prescription and the doctrine of lost modern grant.

TFL's wholly owned subsidiary, Transport Trading Ltd, was at the relevant time the holding company for London Underground and Crossrail Limited ("Crossrail"). Crossrail is a special purpose vehicle created for the delivery of the Crossrail project.

As a consequence of the Crossrail project, various parcels of land across the South East were compulsorily acquired by Crossrail and one such parcel of land was owned by Derwent. At the time of the bill supporting the Crossrail project passing through Parliament, Derwent raised an objection to it. That objection was ultimately compromised by a compromise agreement that granted Derwent a right of pre-emption over the Station and the right to build above it.

These rights came with significant pre-conditions that included, amongst other things, demonstrating to the Secretary of State for Transport that it has the necessary financial and development expertise to acquire the site and to develop it by means of an oversite. There was also a detailed and complicated mechanism surrounding the exercise of the rights that would take a significant amount of time to fulfil and, even once the process had begun, there was no certainty that the option would be taken by Derwent.

Shortly after being granted these rights, Derwent commenced work on a scheme that involved the future oversite development of the Station, such development involving Derwent, TFL and London Underground, and the local planning authority. Drivers Jonas were appointed by Derwent as its rights to light consultants in April 2007 and, between March 2008 and January 2009, the advisers for both CIP and Derwent discussed the project in detail.

On 24 October 2008 there was a meeting between the advisers of Derwent and CIP. Consequently Derwent were advised that CIP generally supported the proposed development but were likely to claim prescriptive rights to light to the Properties and notified Derwent that they would seek to protect their position in this regard.

On 7 August 2009 Derwent's advisers suggested that, at a forthcoming meeting, Derwent might consider terms on which to buy out the rights to light that CIP claimed. Following that communication there was then a lull in open activity (potentially because there may have been without prejudice communications and negotiations) until 15 and 16 April 2011 when letters before action were issued on behalf of CIP to all three Defendants.

Notwithstanding the threat of proceedings contained within this letter (which included a threat of injunctive relief), the Defendants and Crossrail continued to want to reach an amicable solution with CIP – particularly as a consequence of the fact that any development was unlikely to be commenced prior to completion of the works being undertaken to the Station. They therefore expressed their surprise at the approach taken by CIP.

However, CIP apparently rebuffed such an approach and commenced proceedings on 27 May 2011 seeking a declaration from the Court to the effect that all three Defendants were not entitled to obstruct their light, an injunction to prevent them from doing so and damages in lieu of an injunction. The proceedings were then served on the three Defendants on 22 September 2011.

Following the filing of Acknowledgments of Service by all three Defendants, extensions to the time for filing the Defences were granted and on 19 October 2011 Crossrail and Derwent applied for planning permission for the proposed oversite development. At the same time, the local planning authority released a press release confirming that the application had been made and Derwent's solicitors wrote to CIP's solicitors in terms confirming that, whilst they considered the proceedings to be a surprise and disappointing, the proceedings "must now be dealt with" and confirming that, as CIP were0 aware, the proposed development was at least 5 years away. Derwent's solicitors also confirmed that there was no intention for any development to take place without any regard to any relevant rights to light of any third parties and that, therefore the proceedings were both misconceived and premature. Similar objections were also raised on behalf of Crossrail.

CIP though disagreed and refused to withdraw the proceedings. There was then a further exchange of correspondence between the parties' solicitors that culminated in an application on behalf of all three Defendants for summary judgment, the implication being that success in that application would strike a fatal blow to CIP's claim. The Decision The Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Andrew Morritt ("the Chancellor"), heard this application and he concurred wholeheartedly with the approach taken by the three Defendants and dismissed CIP's claim.

In formulating his decision, the Chancellor noted in particular the content of witness statements of Paul Williams (on behalf of Derwent) and Colin Smith (on behalf of the TFL and London Underground) in which they confirmed that:

  • Derwent's proposed development was still embryonic;
  • The process for obtaining planning permission was long and provided ample opportunity for the scheme to be altered;
  • CIP's claim had been made prematurely;
  • The oversite development could not being until 2017 at the earliest;
  • There was no guarantee that Derwent would exercise its right of pre-emption; and
  • It was not possible at that early stage to predicate that the proposed development would substantially impact on the right to light of third parties.

The Chancellor also took guidance from the general principles on both declaratory and injunctive relief.

He summarised this by stating that, as far as declaratory relief was concerned, he needed to ask himself (1) whether or not the claim was premature, (2) whether or not the declaration sought would serve a useful purpose, and (3) whether or not the issues were sufficiently clearly defined to be properly jusiticiable.

When it came to injunctive relief, the Chancellor considered that, if he was to grant such relief, he needed to be satisfied that there was an immediate threat to do something which required the intervention of the court to prevent it.

The Chancellor therefore decided that there could be no liability on either TFL or London Underground on the basis that, whilst the owned the Station (and therefore the land subject to the pre-emption right), they did not apply for the planning permission for any oversite development in respect of the Station after completion of the Crossrail project.

Further, there was no evidence that either of them had any proposals for such a development nor was there anything within the pre-emption agreement to suggest that they had done anything by way of encouragement or acceptance so as to make themselves liable for the consequences of any development undertaken by Derwent with regard to any right of light enjoyed by CIP.

Further, they had made no threat to infringe any right of light that CIP may enjoy. The claim was therefore dismissed against both TFL and London Underground.

In terms of the claim against Derwent, the Chancellor confirmed that it was quite clear that there was no immediate threat that Derwent would infringe CIP's right to light on the following bases: " Derwent did not, at that point, own the Property and its future ownership depended on it satisfying various pre-conditions as provided for in the pre-emption agreement and on it deciding to exercise the pre-emption right. In any event satisfaction of those pre-conditions and the completion of the pre-emption procedure could not take place before 2017.

  • There as not, at that time, a planning permission for any oversite development. The Chancellor was in little doubt that it would take time to obtain such permission and to satisfy any planning conditions that may be stipulated.
  • Derwent had made it clear on several occasions that it would not proceed with any oversite development without regard to the rights of third parties.
  • The simple fact that Derwent did not make explicit reference to the proceedings being premature until 6 months after the letter of claim did not create an immediate threat of infringement. CIP could not, by its own actions, create a threat by Derwent that did not exist and a delay of 6 months was of little consequence to a minimum of 5 years before any actual infringement could occur.
  • The fact that, notwithstanding CIP's representations, Derwent's proposals had not changed did not of its self give rise to an immediate threat to infringe the rights claimed by CIP, particularly where such development could not take place in less than 5 years' time.

Therefore, in the light of all of the above factors, the Chancellor decided that the claim for a declaration against Derwent was misconceived because it was premature and would serve no useful purpose at that point. In addition, the Chancellor had considerable doubts as to the possibility of any meaningful definition of the relevant issues given that the development did not have the benefit of any planning permission and could change substantially in the following 5 years anyway.

Further, the Chancellor decided that the claim for an injunction against Derwent was also misconceived. The Chancellor considered that there was not then and could not be for at least 5 years an immediate threat by Derwent to infringe the rights to light claimed by CIP. Nothing that was put forward by CIP could ever change the undisputable fact that it was impossible for Derwent to infringe the rights to light CIP claimed before 2017 at the earliest.

The entire action was therefore dismissed.

Charles Russell Comment

At a time when many developers are looking strategically at land options and future development plans, this case provides a timely reminder that, when protecting your rights, it is vital to ensure that enforcement action is not commenced prematurely but that there is a genuine and crystallised right that can be protected.

No doubt CIP were concerned that failure to take action may give rise to criticism that they acquiesced in the face of the threats to the security of their rights. However, the Court will not heed such criticism in circumstances where the rights are continually protected in correspondence and litigation only commenced once there is a clear and imminent threat to such rights.

As the Chancellor commented in this case:

"If I conclude, as I do, that this action is premature, the fear of [CIP] is no reason to withhold the order that [Derwent] seeks. It will be up to [CIP] through its solicitors to ensure that [Derwent] is aware at all material times of [CIP]'s concerns. If [Derwent] then proceeds with its development plans, thereby incurring significant costs, that is a matter for [Derwent]. But they could hardly then complain that they had been encouraged to do so by any inaction on the part of [CIP]".

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Richard Flenley
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.