(County Court) Judge Cooke considered a claim for an alleged breach of a right of light. The well-lit area in the living room was 51% of the floor area before the development, reduced to 41% afterwards.
Held: There had been an actionable interference with the plaintiff’s right to light. Referring to Ough v King, he said that the decision ‘really means not so much that one disregards the 50/50 rule, but that it is a bare minimum’ and ‘It seems to me that having regard to the authorities I ought to approach the problem on these bases: (i) In a room that is already ill-lit every bit of light is precious. (ii) Save in an extreme case it would be difficult to say that once a living room (contrast a store) fell below 50/50 that the light left was adequate. (iii) In considering whether a room where more than 50% remained well-lit regard should be had to the use to be made of the remainder and how bad, vis a vis that use, the remaining light was. (iv) The test is not merely a statistical one: test (ii) provides a pretty irreductible minimum.’
Judges:
Judge Cooke
Citations:
[1994] 1 EGLR 190
Citing:
Cited – Ough v King CA 1967
A claim was made for breach of a right to light. The defendant relied on Waldram diagrams to demonstrate that the new extensions did not reduce the amount of adequate light remaining available below the 50% threshold. The relevant room had a floor . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regan v Paul Properties DPF No 1 Ltd and others ChD 27-Jul-2006
The claimant sought an injunction claiming that new building works were a nuisance in breaching his rights of light.
Held: The claim for an injunction failed. Whatever may be the position in cases of other wrongful conduct, in the case of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Nuisance
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.244243