Cases - Dance v Triplow
Record details
- Name
- Dance v Triplow
- Date
- (1992)
- Citation
- 64 P&CR 1
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Rights of light - Prescription Act 1832
- Summary
-
The plaintiff and the defendant owned adjoining houses. In November 1980, the defendant completed the construction of a 2 storey extension to his house. The plaintiff began proceedings in August 1984 complaining that the extension infringed his right of light to the window to the spare bedroom. He claimed that he had acquired a right to light under the Prescription Act. There was some evidence that the plaintiff had complained to the defendant about the loss of light in or before February 1982. It was common ground that no complaint was made by the plaintiff or his solicitor between that date and the date the action was commenced, although the plaintiff's solicitor did write to the defendant about another matter. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had submitted to or acquiesced in the interruption.
The Court of Appeal held (referring to Presland v Bingham (1889)) that the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that, at the time he commenced the action, the interruption had lasted for less than one year or that, if it had lasted for more than a year, that he did not submit to or acquiesce in it. In order to demonstrate non-submission or non-acquiescence, it was necessary for a plaintiff not only to feel discontented, but also to communicate his discontent to the defendant. The Court of Appeal accepted that if there had been evidence of strong complaint by the plaintiff periodically up to and shortly before February 1982, it should have been clear to the defendants for some time afterwards that the plaintiff was not submitting or acquiescing. However, it held on the facts of the case that the failure to communicate with the defendants for 2 and half years could only be construed as amounting to submission to or acquiescence in the interruption.