Cases - Courtauld v Legh
Record details
- Name
- Courtauld v Legh
- Date
- (1869)
- Citation
- LR 4 Exch 126, 130
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Rights of light
- Summary
-
The plaintiff and defendant owned adjoining properties. By 1830, the plaintiff's predecessor had built a house to the stage at which all structural parts had been completed, the roof was finished, the floors laid and windows installed. However, the internal fitting out and decoration were not completed and, in that sense, the house was unfit for habitation. In 1852, the plaintiff bought it, completed it and lived there for two years, after which time it remained empty. In 1865, the defendant extended his house, obstructing the access of light to the plaintiff's house. The issue was whether the plaintiff had acquired a right to light under the Prescription Act. The defendant argued that a right to light could not be acquired unless there was occupation because, without this, there would not be actual enjoyment of the light.
The court held that it was not necessary for the house to be occupied in order for light to be enjoyed. It decided that, once a house had reached the stage of having external and internal walls, roof, flooring and windows, capable of being opened and shut and admitting light, the owner could be said to enjoy and use the access of light. A right to light had therefore been acquired by 20 years' enjoyment of light before the claim was brought.