Cases - Perry v Eames
Record details
- Name
- Perry v Eames
- Date
- (1891)
- Citation
- 1 Ch. 658 Ch D
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Rights of light - Prescription Act 1832
- Summary
-
The plaintiffs claimed rights to light over the site of the old Bankruptcy Court in the City of London. The judge held that no right to light could be acquired under the Prescription Act because the site was owned by the Crown and the Act did not apply to the Crown. The plaintiffs claimed, in the alternative, that a right had been acquired by lost modern grant or by prescription at common law before the site had been purchased by the Crown. The judge held that the site was part of the ancient Cloth Market to which the Custom of London applied.
This meant that a man might rebuild on ancient foundations to whatever height he pleased, even if neighbours' windows were obstructed, if there were no written agreement to the contrary. Therefore, although the Custom of London would not apply to a claim under the Prescription Act as a result of the wording of section 3 (which stated that the right was acquired notwithstanding customs to the contrary), it did apply to claims for prescription at common law and under the doctrine of lost modern grant and meant that no rights could be acquired by these methods of prescription.