Dance v Triplow: CA 1992

The parties were neighbours. T got planning permission in 1977 to build a two storey extension. D, the plaintiff, knew of the plan and that it would interrupt the light to his bungalow. Over the years, the plan was implemented in stages, and in 1981, after the roof was on, D unsuccessfully sought a variation in the permission to avoid intrusions of his privacy, but raised the question of the interruption of his light only in 1982, and proceedings began only in 1984. At first instance D was awarded damages.
Held: T’s appeal succeeded. Where, as here the interruption as in its nature permanent, the onus of proof was on the plaintiff to establish that at the time he began proceedings, the interruption had been for less than a year. If it has existed for more than a year the onus remained upon him to establish lack of acquiescence. That required establishing his state of mind, by some overt action. That was absent in this case form the plaintiff’s evidence.


[1992] 17 EG 103




Prescription Act 1832


England and Wales


AppliedPresland v Bingham CA 1889
The plaintiff said that his right to light enjoyed by certain windows had been unlawfully obstructed by the building of a wall. The defendant said that the plaintiff’s acquisition of the right by prescription had been interrupted by his practice of . .
DistinguishedDavies v Du Paver CA 1953
The court accepted that local farmers could identify which sheep belonged to what person on the owner’s land but the owner of the land was not able to do so and, not sharing that common knowledge, did not have knowledge of the user, and court denied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634816