Cases - Smith v Baxter
Record details
- Name
- Smith v Baxter
- Date
- (1900)
- Citation
- 2 Ch 138
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Rights of light
- Summary
-
The plaintiff and the defendant owned adjoining premises. The defendant intended to increase the height of his building and the plaintiff alleged that this would interfere with his rights to light. One issue was whether rights to light had been acquired under the Prescription Act in relation to 2 windows, which had been boarded up, and a third, which had been covered with open shelving, for more than a year prior to the action being brought.
The judge held (relying on Cooper v Straker) that continuous user was not necessary in order to acquire a right of light under the Prescription Act. The need for continuous user would mean that shops which closed their shutters one day a week would not acquire rights and would be inconsistent with the fact that the right is not lost by demolition and rebuilding. He stated that non-user that would not be sufficient to amount to abandonment might be enough to prevent the acquisition of a right under the Act. He held that the boarding, which completely excluded the light, prevented a right to light being acquired. However, as the shelving did not entirely exclude the light, but allowed a substantial portion through, a right had been acquired under the Prescription Act in relation to the third window.