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 area of 156.5ft2; before the construction 100.25ft2 had been adequately lit; after the construction 80.25ft2 remained adequately lit. The adequately lit area had declined from 64.05% to 51.27%. The county court judge found that an actionable infringement had occurred.
Held: The defenedant’s appeal failed.
Danckwerts LJ referred to the ‘more demanding standards at the present time in the modern situation’.
Diplock LJ referred to the 50:50 rule as ‘a convenient rule of thumb’ in the 1920s ‘and perhaps later’.
Lord Denning MR: ‘I think the judge was entitled to have regard to the higher standards expected for comfort as the years go by. . . . In these days I would not myself be prepared to regard the 50:50 rule of Mr. Waldram as a universal rule. In some cases a higher standard may reasonably be required.’
Judges:
Lord Denning MR, Danckwerts LJ, Diplock LJ
Citations:
[1967] 1 WLR 1547
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Deakins v Hookings CC 1994
(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 . .
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, Litigation Practice
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.244242
