Cases - Clifford v Holt
Record details
- Name
- Clifford v Holt
- Date
- [1899]
- Citation
- 1 Ch 698
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Rights of light - Prescription Act, s.3
- Summary
-
The plaintiff had a greenhouse in his garden, one wall of which was a party wall between his property and that of the defendant. The defendant began raising the party wall to form one side of a racquet court. The plaintiff claimed an injunction to prevent the defendant increasing the height of the party wall, on the ground that this would obstruct light to his greenhouse. The defendant argued that a greenhouse was not a building within section 3 of the Prescription Act.
The judge did not accept that the building must be analogous to a dwelling-house or workshop, which had been the view of the judge in Harris v De Pinna. He did accept that not everything that was built would fall within section 3 of the Act. In determining whether the greenhouse was a building for the purposes of the Act, the judge considered whether the greenhouse was a building that required access of light for the ordinary purposes for which light is required. He concluded that the greenhouse was such a building and granted the plaintiff an injunction. He did not decide which other buildings would be covered by section 3, although he gave examples of chapels, studios, picture galleries and lecture rooms.