An action would lie where a pig-stye was erected so close to the plaintiff’s house as to corrupt the air in the house, and also and similarly for a lime-kiln with smoke, or where filth from a dye house runs into a fish pond. Where the plaintiff claims that an easement has been acquired by prescription, the defendant cannot set up another easement to destroy that easement. Though an action will lie for obstruction of light, it will not for an obstruction of a prospect: ‘The law does not give an action for such things of delight.’
References: (1619) 9 Co Rep 57 b, (1619) 77 ER 816
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Bland v Moseley 1587 ((1587),
The court distinguished the elements of an easement of light and an easement of air. In the absence of an easement, a building may be erected so as to restrict the flow of air onto his neighbour’s land. . .
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997 (Gazette 14-May-97, Times 25-Apr-97, , [1997] UKHL 14, [1997] AC 655, [1997] Fam Law 601, [1997] 2 All ER 426, [1997] 2 FLR 342, [1997] 2 WLR 684, [1997] Env LR 488, [1997] 54 Con LR 12, [1997] 84 BLR 1, [1997] CLC 1045, (1998) 30 HLR 409)
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . . - Cited – Prince Albert v Strange ChD 8-Feb-1849 ((1849) 1 H and Tw 1, 2 De G and SM 293, (1849) 1 Mac and G 25, , [1849] EWHC Ch J20, [1849] EngR 255, , (1849) 41 ER 1171, [1849] EngR 261, , (1849) 47 ER 1302, (1849) 2 De Gex and Sim 652)
The Prince sought to restrain publication of otherwise unpublished private etchings and lists of works by Queen Victoria. The etchings appeared to have been removed surreptitiously from or by one Brown. A personal confidence was claimed.
Held: . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.195584
