Cases - Ough v King

Record details

Name

Ough v King

Date

[1967]

Citation

3 AII ER 859; 1 WLR 1547

Keywords

Rights of light - nuisance - infringement - 50/50 rule - 50/50 rule as a useful guide - locality - the higher standards expected for comfort as the years go by should be taken into account - whether the room received less light than was sufficient according to the ordinary notions of mankind

Summary

The plaintiff was the owner and occupier of a property in Gravesend. The defendant, a builder, owned the adjoining house. He carried out alterations and built an extension to his property in order to convert it into flats. After the alterations were carried out, the plaintiff complained that he had interfered with light to two windows facing his house to which she had acquired rights to light by prescription. The defendant argued, based on the evidence of his expert (Mr Brian Anstey), that the plaintiff had no claim because, after the development, over 50% of the room (in fact, 51.27%) remained well lit. The defendant argued (relying on William Cory v City of London Real Property Company Ltd (1954)) that it was generally accepted that, if half a room at table height was within the area receiving one or more lumens, the room as a whole was regarded as adequately lit, according to the ordinary notions of mankind. The judge held that there had been an actionable interference with the plaintiff's right to light. He stated that he thought that the notions of mankind on the subject of light had changed and were changing: possibly connected with improvement in electric light. He considered that ordinary people would not now accept, for a living room and office on the outskirts of a town like Gravesend, the daylight standard which was accepted 12 years earlier for an office in the City of London (i.e. the office in William Cory). The defendant appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The judge was entitled to have regard to the locality and to the higher standards expected for comfort as the years went by. Lord Denning was not prepared to regard Mr Waldram's 50/50 rule as a universal rule and considered that in some cases a higher standard might reasonably be required. Diplock LJ stated that there was no rule of law that no one was entitled to more light than one lumen over 50% of a room at table level. He said that the 50/50 rule was considered in the 1920s and, perhaps later, as a convenient rule of thumb. However, the real question was whether the room now received less light than was sufficient according to the ordinary notions of mankind.

This case establishes that the 'ordinary notions of mankind' require that account be taken of the higher standards of natural lighting expected by people nowadays, compared with that regarded as acceptable in the early years of the 20th century.

It also establishes that expert evidence from a rights of light surveyor is a helpful addition to the evidence from the parties, and that the judge should normally view the premises affected. The 50/50 'rule' may require higher standards of light in some cases.