Colls v Home and Colonial Stores
Encyclopedia
Colls v Home and Colonial Stores (1904) is an English tort law
English tort law
English tort law concerns civil wrongs, as distinguished from criminal wrongs, in the law of England and Wales. Some wrongs are the concern of the state, and so the police can enforce the law on the wrongdoers in court – in a criminal case...

 case concerning the entitlement to daylight where a right to light exists.

Facts

Home and Colonial Stores owned land at 44 Worship Street, Shoreditch
Shoreditch
Shoreditch is an area of London within the London Borough of Hackney in England. It is a built-up part of the inner city immediately to the north of the City of London, located east-northeast of Charing Cross.-Etymology:...

, London
London
London is the capital city of :England and the :United Kingdom, the largest metropolitan area in the United Kingdom, and the largest urban zone in the European Union by most measures. Located on the River Thames, London has been a major settlement for two millennia, its history going back to its...

 EC2. They proposed to erect a tall building on the site. Colls owned a property immediately opposite number 44 and objected to the erection of the new building due to the effect this would have on light to a clerks’ office on the ground floor of his building.

He applied for an injunction
Injunction
An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions...

 to restrain the new development. He argued that he was entitled to an easement
Easement
An easement is a certain right to use the real property of another without possessing it.Easements are helpful for providing pathways across two or more pieces of property or allowing an individual to fish in a privately owned pond...

, under section 3 of the Prescription Act 1832, in respect of all the light currently enjoyed by his building.

Judgment

The House of Lords held that Colls was entitled to "sufficient light" to light his premises "according to the ordinary notions of mankind". As, he would have in excess of this amount, even after the erection of the new building, he had not suffered an actionable interference with his easement of light.

The extent of the entitlement to light was described by Lord Lindley in the following terms:

"Generally speaking an owner of ancient lights is entitled to sufficient light according to the ordinary notions of mankind for the comfortable use and enjoyment of his house as a dwelling-house, if it is a dwelling-house, or for the beneficial use and occupation of the house if it is a warehouse, a shop, or other place of business."
The source of this article is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL.
 
x
OK