Retired Couple Faces £3.7 Million Legal Bill in London Tower Dispute
A retired couple who successfully sued developers over a 17-storey office tower that blocked natural light to their London flat could now be forced to pay a staggering £3.7 million in legal costs. Stephen and Jennifer Powell, along with their neighbour Kevin Cooper, took legal action against the developers of Arbor Tower on London's South Bank, claiming the structure significantly reduced light in their sixth and seventh-floor flats.
Background of the Bankside Yards Development
The Arbor Tower is part of the larger Bankside Yards project, which is set to include eight towers, with some reaching up to 50 storeys in height. Completed in September 2021 at a cost of nearly £35 million, Arbor Tower was the first building finished in this ambitious development. The Powells, who moved into their flat in 2002, and Mr. Cooper, a property finance professional who purchased his flat in 2021, filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to protect their rights of light, even threatening the potential demolition of the tower.
Court Ruling and Damages Awarded
In a landmark decision, Justice Fancourt ruled in favour of the claimants, stating that the building "substantially affected" their access to natural light. He awarded the Powells £500,000 in damages and Mr. Cooper £350,000, noting that parts of their flats had light levels "insufficient for the ordinary use and enjoyment of those rooms." However, the judge refused to grant an injunction that would have required the tower to be altered or torn down, citing that over £200 million would be wasted in demolition and reconstruction.
Legal Costs Controversy
Following the ruling, the developers, represented by John McGhee KC, argued that the claimants should pay the £3.7 million legal costs of the case. McGhee contended that since the primary goal of the lawsuit—obtaining an injunction for demolition—was not achieved, the developers were the successful party. He stated, "The claimants should be ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the claims because it was overall the successful party, having successfully resisted the claimants' claim for injunctive relief."
In response, the claimants' barrister, Tim Calland, disputed this, asserting that the Powells and Mr. Cooper were the successful parties due to the substantial damages awarded. He argued, "Undoubtedly, the claimants are the successful party in the litigation: the court awarded them substantial sums in damages which, in the case of the Powells, exceeded the largest sum ever before awarded in a reported rights-of-light case."
Settlement Dispute and Future Ruling
Additionally, the developers claimed that Mr. Cooper failed to accept a pre-trial settlement offer, but his lawyers argued the offer was invalid as it included matters beyond the litigation scope. The final ruling on who will bear the legal costs is pending and will be announced at a later date. This case highlights the complex interplay between property development, resident rights, and legal financial risks in urban London.
