Cases - Ray v Hazeldine

Record details

Name

Ray v Hazeldine

Date

(1904)

Citation

2 Ch. 17

Keywords

Rights of light

Summary

The defendant owned 2 adjoining properties. He sold one to the plaintiff's predecessor and retained the other, without expressly reserving any rights over the property sold for the benefit of the property retained. Subsequently, the plaintiff built a wall on her premises that blocked out the light to 2 windows in the defendant's premises. One of the windows had provided light to a pantry, which (after the obstruction) was useless as a pantry. The defendant knocked down the wall and the plaintiff began an action for a declaration that she was entitled to build on her premises so as to obstruct the defendant's light. The defendant argued that the light to the 2 windows was absolutely necessary for the use and enjoyment of that part of the house and, therefore, there was an implied easement of necessity reserved in the conveyance to the plaintiff's predecessor.

The judge held, relying on Wheeldon v Burrows, that the general rule was that if a vendor of land wished to reserve a right for the benefit of the retained land, he must do it by express words in the deed of conveyance. He accepted that there was an exception for easements of necessity, but held that there was a distinction between what was absolutely necessary and what was reasonably required for the enjoyment of the land or building as it stood. He found that the light, including that to the pantry, did not fall into the category of necessity. He therefore made a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to build on her property in such manner as to obstruct the light to the 2 windows.