Property lawEasementsHouse of Lords

Colls v Home and Colonial Stores Ltd

[1904] AC 179; [1904] UKHL 119041 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The plaintiff had an established right to light for his business premises. A neighbour put up a building that reduced the light reaching them.
Issue
Does any reduction of established light give a right to relief?
Held
No. The owner of a right to light is not entitled to all the light he once had.
Principle
An easement of light protects only against substantial deprivation amounting to a nuisance: enough to make a building uncomfortable to live in or to prevent beneficial use for business, judged by the ordinary notions of mankind; a mere reduction of light is not actionable.
Cite this

Facts

  • The plaintiff had an established right to light for his business premises.
  • A neighbour put up a building that reduced the light reaching them.

Issue

  1. Does any reduction of established light give a right to relief?

Held

  • No. The owner of a right to light is not entitled to all the light he once had.
  • He is protected only against a substantial deprivation that amounts to a nuisance: enough to make the building uncomfortable to live in, or to stop it being used for business as beneficially as before, judged by the ordinary notions of mankind.

Cite this

Citation

Colls v Home and Colonial Stores Ltd [1904] AC 179; [1904] UKHL 1

Reported: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1904/1.html (English case; not on IK or SCI). This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.