In considering whether a right to light was infringed, and where a room had light from another source, which also could be potentially interfered with (but not by the Defendant), the amount and interference permitted by the Defendant is only that available after an assumption that the light passing into the other window has similarly been interfered with.
Maughan J: ‘At the moment when the right is acquired by the plaintiff company in respect of both of the two windows on the North and the two windows on the East, I think that the nature of the restrictive obligation imposed upon people facing those two windows is that they were not so built as by their joint action to cause a nuisance to the plaintiff company within the meaning of that term as used by the House of Lords in Coils v. home and Colonial Stores.. in other words, I think that the proper view is that the owner of Blackacre can build to such height as, with a similar building by the owner of Whiteacre, will yet leave sufficient light for the Masonic Hall. The obligations of both owners are the same; neither has a greater obligation than the other in the simple case which I am considering.’ and ‘ . . J see no reason to suppose that at some not distant date the owners of those premises will not desire to erect a substantial building right up to the corner of the building line.’.
Maugham J
[1932] 2 Ch 17
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Midtown Ltd v City of London Real Property Company Ltd ChD 20-Jan-2005
Tenants occupied land next to land which was to be developed after compulsory acquisition. The tenants and the landlords asserted a right of light over the land, and sought an injunction to prevent the development. The developer denied that any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.222597