Cases - Quicke v Chapman

Record details

Name

Quicke v Chapman

Date

(1903)

Citation

1 Ch 659

Legislation

• Conveyancing Act 1881
• Law of Property Act 1925

Keywords

Rights of light - Conveyancing Act 1881 - Law of Property Act 1925

Summary

The defendant builder entered into an agreement with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which entitled him to build houses on the Commissioners' land. The parties agreed that, once each house constructed by the defendant was completed to the Commissioners' satisfaction, they would grant him a lease of that plot for 99 years. The defendant constructed a house (no. 28) on one of the plots and the Commissioners granted him a lease of that plot in the agreed form. The defendant transferred the lease of no. 28 to the plaintiffs. On the adjoining plot, the defendant then started to construct another house (no. 30) in accordance with plans approved by the Commissioners. When no. 30 was completed, the plaintiffs found that the house obstructed the light to their house and therefore brought an action against the defendant claiming an injunction and damages. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to a right to light by implied grant, relying on section 6 of the Conveyancing Act 1881 (the predecessor to section 62 of LPA 1925) and the principle of non-derogation from grant.

The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs had not been granted a right to light under the Act. The rights that passed under section 6 were limited to those rights that the vendor could have granted expressly. The defendant did not have the power to make an express grant of a right to light because, at the time he sold no. 28 to the plaintiffs, he did not have a lease of no. 30. At most he was a licensee and, therefore, did not have a sufficient proprietary interest in no. 30 to make an express grant of a right to light. Consequently, no grant of a right to light could be implied under the Act.