Cases - Presland v Bingham
Record details
- Name
- Presland v Bingham
- Date
- (1889)
- Citation
- 41 Ch D 268
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Rights of light - Prescription Act 1832
- Summary
-
The plaintiffs and the defendant, a stonemason, owned adjoining premises. The defendant substantially raised the height of the party wall and the plaintiffs began an action, claiming that the defendant had interfered with the light to their skylight. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs had not acquired a right to light under the Prescription Act because he had interrupted the light for several years by piling empty packing-cases up against the party wall above the height of the wall. The evidence was conflicting as to the height of the packing cases. It was clear, however, that the cases were moved from time to time and that the level fluctuated between high, low and no obstruction at all.
The Court of Appeal held that the interruption did not fall within section 4 of the Prescription Act. It was fluctuating, uncertain and intermittent and there was no satisfactory evidence on which it could be held that it had lasted continuously for one year. The plaintiffs had therefore acquired a right to light. It was also held that, if the obstruction was of a permanent character, the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that it did not continue for a year with his acquiescence; but, if the obstruction was of a temporary character, the burden was on the defendant to prove that there had been an obstruction for a year in which the plaintiff acquiesced.