Rights to Light Case Law Ankerson v Connelly

Rights to Light Case Law Ankerson v Connelly (1906) is a pivotal judgment in the development of rights to light jurisprudence.

It addresses what happens when a landowner alters their property in such a way that it increases the burden on neighbouring land.

Specifically, the court considered whether a dominant owner, by modifying their building, could still claim the benefit of an ancient light if that modification caused the light to become more critical to the enjoyment of the premises than before.

In Ankerson v Connelly, the Chancery Division delivered a judgment that remains influential in rights to light disputes, particularly where the dominant tenement has undergone significant alterations.

The decision clarified that such changes could result in the forfeiture of rights if they increased the burden on the servient tenement beyond what was previously lawful.

Factual Background

The plaintiffs owned land that formerly comprised the site of a house known as 170 King's Cross Road.

The defendant, in 1899, acquired adjoining properties at Nos. 172, 174, and 176. His intention was to demolish the existing structures and erect a new building of a different character on the site.

At No. 172, the existing house included:

A living room on the ground floor with a window (referred to in court as window B),

A glass panel in the back door providing light to an adjacent passageway (referred to as panel C),

An open yard to the north of the house,

A penthouse shed at the rear, partially enclosed, with an open front and a small window on the plaintiffs’ boundary.

Light for the house and shed came from several directions:

The yard to the north,

Additional open yards behind Nos. 174 and 176,

Some light from over buildings to the north,

Light passing over the plaintiffs’ land to the east.

At that time, only a five-foot wall separated the plaintiffs’ and defendant’s properties. The light through the windows B, C, and the shed window had existed for many years and were admitted to be ancient lights.

Alterations by the Defendant

The defendant’s redevelopment replaced the existing houses with a new building.

Key alterations included:

Covering in the entire yard area of Nos. 172, 174, and 176, enclosing it on all sides and overhead,

Increasing the boundary wall height between No. 172 and the plaintiffs’ land to six feet,

Leaving three openings in the new wall:

Installing two new windows in the rebuilt house (also called B and C), broadly corresponding to the former locations of the original windows.

Crucially, after the redevelopment, all light to windows B and C came exclusively through the new wall gap over the plaintiffs’ land. The light from the west, north, and directly overhead was now blocked by the new structure.

Dispute and Proceedings

In May 1905, the plaintiffs erected hoardings on their land. These blocked light to the shed window and the newly created apertures, including the gap in the wall.

The defendant forcibly removed the hoardings, prompting the plaintiffs to sue. They sought:

1. A declaration that the defendant no longer had any easement of light or air over their land,

2. Damages for trespass (removal of the hoardings),

3. An injunction restraining further interference.

Legal Issues

The key legal issue centred on whether the defendant had, by his alterations, increased the burden on the servient tenement (the plaintiffs' land) to such an extent that he had forfeited or destroyed his right to light.

The plaintiffs argued that:

The alterations materially changed the dominant tenement,

The reliance on light from the plaintiffs’ land had increased,

The right to light was effectively destroyed or no longer enforceable.

The defendant countered that:

He retained three ancient lights,

The alterations did not abandon or extinguish his rights,

His changes did not amount to an encroachment that invalidated the easement,

The shed window remained in a similar position and function as before.

The Judgment of Warrington J

Mr Justice Warrington provided a detailed analysis, focusing on whether the burden on the servient tenement had increased and, if so, whether the easement had been extinguished or rendered unenforceable.

1. The Test for Infringement of a Right to Light

Warrington J referenced the House of Lords decision in Colls v Home and Colonial Stores [1904], which established that:

“The servient tenement is burdened to the extent that its owner must not erect anything which renders the dominant tenement substantially uncomfortable by interference with light through ancient apertures.”

2. Increase in Burden Due to Alterations

Warrington J found that:

The new design excluded all light from the west, north, and above,

Light from the east—over the plaintiffs’ land—became the only light source,

A building on the plaintiffs’ land, which previously would not have caused actionable interference, would now make the defendant’s rooms substantially uncomfortable.

This represented a material and substantial increase in the burden on the servient tenement.

He further noted that:

The shed window now relied solely on light through the plaintiffs’ land due to enclosure of the shed’s front,

The previous open-front design of the shed allowed light from multiple directions.

3. Severability of the Burden

The court then asked whether it was possible to “sever” the additional burden imposed by the alterations, preserving the original easement. Warrington J found this to be impossible:

“It is beyond human ingenuity to say what may be done on the servient land without being a nuisance to so much of the old light as still passes through the new windows.”

As a result:

The defendant could not enforce his right to light,

He could not sue for damages or seek an injunction,

He had no enforceable right to light remaining.

Warrington J concluded that:

Whether one considers the right destroyed or unenforceable, the practical outcome is the same,

The plaintiffs were entitled to the declaration they sought.

Key Takeaways from Rights to Light Case Law Ankerson v Connelly

Ancient Lights Are Not Immutable: Possessing an ancient light does not guarantee that right will survive if the dominant owner alters their property in a way that increases dependency on the servient land.

Increased Burden Can Extinguish Easement: Where redevelopment results in a greater burden on neighbouring land, the right to light may become unenforceable.

Severance Test Fails in Complex Cases: If it's impossible to identify what portion of the light is lawfully protected without infringing the new structure, courts may rule that no enforceable easement exists.

Colls v Home and Colonial Stores Applied: The standard of “substantial discomfort” for determining light interference continues to influence modern decisions.

No Rights Without Enforceability: If a dominant owner cannot enforce their light rights due to their own alterations, the court may determine that they effectively have no right at all.

Developers Beware: Modifying buildings without considering how those changes affect light dependency can result in a total loss of rights.

This Rights to Light Case Law Ankerson v Connelly remains a cornerstone of English easement law, particularly for surveyors, developers, and legal professionals dealing with complex rights to light disputes. It underlines the risks involved when adapting or rebuilding properties adjacent to others, particularly where ancient lights are involved.

Need support with a rights to light issue?

If you are concerned about rights to light issues—whether you're a homeowner, developer, or investor—our rights to light specialists are here to help. Our expert surveyors and legal advisers can provide detailed reports, assist in negotiating with neighbours, and support you with strategic risk assessments to safeguard your project.

Rights to Light Case Law - Resources

Rights to Light Assessment : A Detailed Guide

What is a Right to Light

Rights to Case Law Colls v Home & Colonial

Contact : Rights to Light Case Law Ankerson v Connelly

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.