Presland 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 stacking crates from time to time to heights greater then that of the wall. The evidence of this was not consistent.
Held: The defence failed. There had been no sufficient interruption of the prescription period
Where the interruption is in its nature permanent, the onus of proving that the interruption did not amount to the necessary acquiescence is on the plaintiff. Where the proposed act of interruption fluctuates by nature, then the onus falls upon the defendant asserting the interruption of proving it.


(1889) 41 Ch D 268, (1889) 60 LT 433, (1889) 53 JP 583, (1889) 37 WR 385


Prescription Act 1832


England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedDance 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634815