Cases - Glover v Coleman
Record details
- Name
- Glover v Coleman
- Date
- (1874)
- Citation
- LR 10 CP 108
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Rights of light - Prescription Act 1832
- Summary
-
The plaintiff had enjoyed the access of light through his workshop window over the defendant's land for more than 20 years. The defendant then constructed a building which obstructed the light some 14 months before an action was commenced by the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff had not started proceedings earlier or tried to remove the obstruction, he did complain on more than one occasion to the defendant. The judge directed that a verdict be entered for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed.
The Court of Appeal considered the meaning of acquiescence and submission for the purpose of section 4 of the Prescription Act. It held that:
- Acquiescence did not mean an active agreement but what might be called a tacit or silent agreement by someone who is satisfied to submit.
- Submission meant submission without being satisfied to submit and without any direct act of opposition, although discontent may be made apparent by some expression or act.
The Court of Appeal also held that whether there was submission or acquiescence was a question of fact and of degree. Mere grumbling or complaining to friends or family would not be sufficient evidence of non-submission or non-acquiescence. It found that, given the complaints made to the defendant and the fact that little more than a year had passed, there was evidence that the plaintiff had not acquiesced in or submitted to the interruption. The defendant's appeal therefore failed.