Rights to Light Case Law Allen v Greenwood

Rights to Light Case Law Allen v Greenwood - this 1979 decision is a cornerstone in the legal framework surrounding rights to light, particularly regarding buildings like greenhouses that depend on a high level of light to function as intended.

Commonly referred to as the “Greenhouse Case”, this Court of Appeal judgment clarified key principles under the Prescription Act 1832, including the scope of light rights, the level of light required, and the admissibility of light required for purposes beyond basic human occupation.

This article explores the factual background, legal arguments, the judgment's reasoning, and the broader implications for rights to light disputes, especially when the dominant property requires an unusually high degree of illumination.

Background: The Greenhouse Dispute

In Allen v Greenwood, the plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Allen, had lived at No. 13 Woodtop Avenue, Rochdale, since 1954 and eventually became the freehold owners in 1974.

Their property included a greenhouse that had stood in their garden since approximately 1939–1941 and had been used for over 20 years to grow tomatoes, bedding plants, and flowering houseplants.

The defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Greenwood, owned the neighbouring property to the south at No. 15 Woodtop Avenue, which they had occupied since 1966.

The Greenwoods’ land was situated approximately 26–28 inches higher than the Allens’ garden and bordered the greenhouse. In 1974, the Greenwoods erected a close-boarded fence and began parking a caravan adjacent to the greenhouse, significantly reducing the light entering through its south-facing wall and roof.

Mr. Allen testified that this obstruction severely impaired the greenhouse’s use. The plants grew poorly or not at all, and light-sensitive propagation tasks became unviable in the affected half of the structure. Although the structure still admitted enough light for human activity like reading or basic tasks, the loss of sunlight for horticultural functions was considerable.

The Allens sued for an injunction based on a prescriptive right to light under Section 3 of the Prescription Act 1832, which entitles a party to a right to light if such light has been "actually enjoyed therewith for the full period of 20 years without interruption".

First Instance Decision: Dismissal by Blackett-Ord V.-C.

At first instance, Blackett-Ord VC dismissed the Allens’ claim. Although he accepted that the use of the greenhouse had been seriously interfered with, he found that:

There was still "ample light" for general use and human occupation.

The Allens had not proven that the defendants or their predecessors knew the precise use being made of the greenhouse.

Therefore, no actionable nuisance had occurred.

The Vice-Chancellor reasoned that a greenhouse required a special degree of light and that such an extraordinary level could only be protected if the servient owner had knowledge of the specific use during the prescriptive period.

Court of Appeal: Key Findings

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision. Lord Justices Goff, Orr, and Buckley all held that:

A greenhouse is a building for the purposes of Section 3 of the Prescription Act 1832.

The right to light acquired by prescription extends to the level of light required for the ordinary use of the building.

Even if the use requires an “extraordinary” amount of light, such a right can still be acquired if the servient owner knew of that use.

Rights to light are not confined to illumination for human comfort.

Obstruction of light that materially diminishes the beneficial use of a building constitutes a nuisance.

Legal Principles Established - Rights to Light Case Law Allen v Greenwood

The judgment in Allen v Greenwood established several significant principles in rights to light case law:

1. Definition of “Ordinary Use”

Goff LJ emphasised that “ordinary use” depends on the nature of the building. A greenhouse normally requires more light than a dwelling house, and thus that higher threshold is not “extraordinary” for such a building.

2. Knowledge Requirement for Extraordinary Use

Where a dominant owner seeks to protect a use that demands more than the standard level of light, such as photography or specialist horticulture, they may still acquire rights—provided the servient owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the use throughout the 20-year period.

3. Benefits of Light Beyond Illumination

Rejecting restrictive interpretations, the court held that light includes all its beneficial properties—illumination, warmth, and radiation. This clarified that rights to light may protect the functional use of buildings beyond mere visual activities.

4. Test of Substantial Interference

The correct test is whether the obstruction materially impacts the use of the building for its ordinary function, not simply whether someone can still see inside it.

The Injunction Granted

The Court of Appeal granted both a prohibitive and a mandatory injunction, requiring:

The removal of the caravan and fence from any position obstructing the southerly or south-easterly walls and roof of the greenhouse.

A prohibition on future obstruction that would amount to a nuisance under these circumstances.

Implications for Surveyors and Property Owners

The Allen v Greenwood ruling has considerable implications for surveyors, developers, and property owners:

Surveyors should consider the intended or long-term actual use of a building when assessing daylight loss, especially for non-residential structures like greenhouses or studios.

Developers must evaluate the cumulative impact of structures, fences, or parked vehicles on neighbouring rights to light—not just buildings.

Property owners should understand that consistent and visible use of a building over 20 years can entrench strong rights to light, even if that use involves high light dependency.

Key Takeaways from Allen v Greenwood

A greenhouse qualifies as a “building” under Section 3 of the Prescription Act 1832.

The prescriptive right to light includes light sufficient for the normal use of the building, even if that requires a high level of illumination.

If the dominant owner uses the building in a light-sensitive manner for 20 years, and the servient owner is aware, the right to that higher level of light becomes indefeasible.

The legal protection is not limited to illumination for human eyes—it extends to any benefit derived from natural light, including warmth and chemical energy.

A material interference with the ordinary use of the building can constitute a nuisance, even if some light remains.

Conclusion : Rights to Light Case Law Allen v Greenwood

Allen v Greenwood remains an unusual but often cited case in the field of rights to light (cited in Carr-Saunders v McNeil & Tamares v Fairpoint).

It demonstrates the courts’ willingness to interpret the Prescription Act pragmatically, protecting not just residential enjoyment but also specific functional uses such as gardening.

The judgment expanded the understanding of light to include all its benefits and clarified that “ordinary” must be evaluated relative to the building’s character.

For property professionals, this case serves as a guiding precedent, especially in disputes involving structures that rely on high light levels.

Understanding the nuanced approach taken in Allen v Greenwood equips stakeholders to navigate the complex landscape of easement law and daylight access with greater confidence.

Need support with a rights to light issue?
Our specialist surveyors and legal advisers can assist with expert reports, neighbour negotiations, and strategic risk assessments.

Rights to Light Case Law - Resources

Rights to Light Surveyors Role : A Detailed Guide

What is a Right to Light

Rights to Light Case Law Midtown v City of London

Rights to Light Case Law Regan v Paul

Contact : Rights to Light Case Law Allen v Greenwood

At Anstey Horne, we are specialists in Right to Light assessments, neighbourly matters, and daylight and sunlight reports. With decades of experience supporting residential and commercial developments across the UK, our team can help you navigate the legal, technical, and planning complexities.

Contact us today to book a consultation or for further advice.

We have compiled a collection of articles in our Rights to Light blog with more information on how a right is acquired, measured and defended, please see our collection

For advice on rights to light direct from one of our surveyors, please call our Rights to Light Enquiry Line on 020 4534 3138.

If you’d like us to call you, please fill in our Contact Us form and we will call you back.