[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-497903-105":59,"doc-detail-497903-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","cooper-v-ludgate-house-final-judgment","Cooper v Ludgate House - Final Judgment","","Approved Judgment in a property dispute in the High Court of Justice (Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Property, Trusts and Probate List, ChD). The matter concerns claims by Kevin Cooper, and joint claimants Stephen Powell and Jennifer Powell, against Ludgate House Limited regarding alleged interference with rights of light from a newly erected office building called “Arbor”. The judgment addresses the issues for comparison between scenarios, how light is to be measured, discretion regarding injunctions, and the proper approach to damages, including negotiating damages and diminution in value.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":20,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/cooper-v-ludgate-house-final-judgment/497903/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/cooper-v-ludgate-house-final-judgment/497903.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"OmBimo","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-04","2026-10-02",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Who are the parties and what is the claim about?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Kevin Cooper and Stephen Powell and Jennifer Powell bring claims against Ludgate House Limited. The claims allege that the office building “Arbor” interferes with rights of light and causes a nuisance.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does the judgment handle the question of interference and the Court’s assessment?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The judgment considers which scenarios (CS1, CS2, DS1) are legally appropriate and addresses how light should be measured, including the role of expert light surveyors and methods of assessment.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"If interference is actionable, what relief and damages are considered?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The judgment evaluates whether the Court should grant an injunction using the discretion test, and then determines damages by examining negotiating damages and, separately, damages for diminution in value.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},497903,1791481194,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":19,"category_name":20,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},962090893581,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 1724 (Ch)  \nCase Nos: PT-2022-000626 PT-2023-000525  \nIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE  \nBUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES  \nPROPERTY, TRUSTSAND PROBATE LIST (ChD)  \nRoyal Courts of Justice  \nThe Rolls Building Fetter Lane LONDON EC4A 1NL  \nTuesday, 8 July 2025  \nBefore :  \nMR JUSTICE FANCOURT  \nBETWEEN:  \nKEVIN COOPER  \nClaimant  \n-and –  \nLUDGATE HOUSE LIMITED  \nDefendant  \nAND BETWEEN:  \n(1) STEPHEN POWELL  \n(2) JENNIFER POWELL  \nClaimants  \n-and –  \nLUDGATE HOUSE LIMITED  \nDefendant  \n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  \n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  \nMr Timothy Calland and Mr Timothy Foot (instructed by Estate Legal Ltd) for the  \nClaimants  \nMr John McGhee KC and Mr Kester Lees KC (instructed by Pinsent Masons LLP) for the  \nDefendants  \nHearing dates: 13, 14 March (pre-reading), 17-21, 24, 25 March, 9, 10 April 2025  \n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  \nAPPROVED JUDGMENT  \n(draft provided on 27 June 2025)  \nContents  \nI. Introduction .................................................................................................... 4  \nII. The Issues ...................................................................................................... 9  \nIII. Bankside Yards .......................................................................................... 10  \nIV. Nature of rights of light ............................................................................. 11  \nStatutory provisions .......................................................................................... 15  \nInstructions to the expert light surveyors.......................................................... 17  \nV. Which of CS1, CS2 and DS1 is the correct scenario for comparison, as a matter of law? ................................................................................................................... 17  \nIs there more than one servient tenement here? ................................................20  \nScenario CS1 or DS1? ...................................................................................... 22  \nVI. How should light be measured for the purpose of informing the Court’s assessment of whether an interference has occurred?.......................................28  \nThe expert light surveyors ................................................................................ 32  \nThe methods of assessment............................................................................... 34  \nIssue 1: treatment of the LKD in flat 605 ......................................................... 36  \nIssue 2: Failure of bedrooms to meet the MDI target ....................................... 39  \nIssue 3: Do the failures to meet the MDF and MDI targets in the After assessments matter if the reduction from the Before assessment is less than 20%?.............42  \nThe basis of Mr Ingram’s opinion ....................................................................44  \nIs there a further test of perceptibility on the Waldram analysis? .................... 50  \nIs the Waldram method reliable? ...................................................................... 51  \nAre any of the new methods of assessment relevant, useful or more appropriate than  \nthe Waldram method, and if so how is the noticeability/substantiality question to be assessed? ........................................................................................................... 51  \nConclusion on Section VI ................................................................................. 55  \nAlternative findings on DS1 scenario ............................................................... 55  \nVII. If there is an actionable interference caused by the erection of Arbor, should the Court in the exercise of its discretion grant an injunction? .............................. 56  \nTest for grant or refusal of an injunction ..........................................................","cbCaiuJzAcd3b4MI","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiuJzAcd3b4MI","pdf",1090797,86,"English","# Introduction\n# The Issues\n# Bankside Yards\n## Nature of rights of light\n# Statutory provisions\n# Instructions to the expert light surveyors\n# Scenario selection and comparison\n## Which of CS1, CS2 and DS1 is the correct scenario?\n## Is there more than one servient tenement?\n# Measuring light and assessing interference\n## The expert light surveyors\n## The methods of assessment\n## Conclusion on Section VI\n# Injunction discretion\n## Test for grant or refusal of an injunction\n## Summary of reasons for declining to grant an injunction\n# Damages\n## Negotiating damages versus diminution in value\n## Assessment of negotiating damages\n## Diminution in value damages","[{\"question\":\"Who are the parties and what is the claim about?\",\"answer\":\"Kevin Cooper and Stephen Powell and Jennifer Powell bring claims against Ludgate House Limited. The claims allege that the office building “Arbor” interferes with rights of light and causes a nuisance.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the judgment handle the question of interference and the Court’s assessment?\",\"answer\":\"The judgment considers which scenarios (CS1, CS2, DS1) are legally appropriate and addresses how light should be measured, including the role of expert light surveyors and methods of assessment.\"},{\"question\":\"If interference is actionable, what relief and damages are considered?\",\"answer\":\"The judgment evaluates whether the Court should grant an injunction using the discretion test, and then determines damages by examining negotiating damages and, separately, damages for diminution in value.\"}]","Cooper v Ludgate House - Final Judgment | PDF",1790970986,217]