Cases - Davies v Du Paver
Record details
- Name
- Davies v Du Paver
- Date
- (1953)
- Citation
- 1 QB 184
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Easements - Rights of light
- Summary
-
This case concerned rights of pasturage rather than rights to light. The Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of interruption under the Prescription Act.
The defendant put up a fence which interfered with the plaintiff's use of the land in question. While the fence was being erected, the plaintiff protested vigorously and his solicitors wrote stating that legal proceedings would be taken if the interference continued. After the fence was completed, the plaintiff made no further protest until more than a year later, when the plaintiff began proceedings, claiming rights under the Prescription Act. The judge held that the plaintiff had proved that he and his predecessors had exercised rights of pasturage for over 60 years. It was clear from the facts that there had been an interruption for more than one year, but the judge held that the plaintiff had not submitted to or acquiesced in the interruption for one year. The defendant appealed.
The Court of Appeal held that it was a question of fact whether there had been a submission or acquiescence and that the judge's finding of fact that there had not been submission or acquiescence should not be reversed. Birkett LJ, however, stated that it was not easy to reach a conclusion on the facts of the case. It was necessary to consider both the fact that nothing overt was done for over a year and the fact that there had previously been strong protests. Morris LJ stated that, as time went by, it might well be that silence and inaction could be interpreted as submission or acquiescence, but the date at which this occurred was a question of fact for the judge.