Rights to Light Case Law Carr-Saunders v McNeil

Rights to Light Case Law Carr-Saunders v McNeil (1986) stands as a significant authority on the interpretation of rights to light under English law.

This Chancery Division decision, delivered by Mr Justice Millett, explored the impact of development on ancient lights and clarified how courts assess whether a substantial interference has occurred—especially when internal arrangements of premises evolve after the dominant owner has acquired the right.

This case is especially instructive because it addresses whether subdivision of a property affects the enforceability of a right to light and how courts determine if an interference qualifies as an actionable nuisance under the Prescription Act 1832.

Background and Facts

Nicholas Carr-Saunders owned the freehold of 2 Neal’s Yard, Covent Garden. The second floor of this property was originally occupied by a tenant who used it to manufacture stage scenery. That tenant created a rudimentary division of the space using plastic sheeting and maintained a solid partitioned office near what later became the Red Room.

In 1976, Carr-Saunders gained possession and transformed the entire second floor into a well-lit open-plan residential living space. Later, in 1981–82, he added two more storeys for his personal use and redesigned the second floor to serve as a suite of six medical consulting rooms, used by various alternative therapy practitioners. This involved building permanent internal walls to create four front rooms and two rear rooms—named the Green Room and the Red Room—each served by one window.

The two rear windows, which faced the defendants’ building at 15 Short’s Gardens, had been in place for over 20 years. Carr-Saunders therefore claimed a prescriptive easement for the light to those windows.

However, the defendants added two storeys to their adjacent building. Carr-Saunders initially sought a mandatory injunction requiring demolition but later limited his claim to damages due to practical considerations.

Legal Issues

1. Whether subdivision of the property affected the right to light: The court considered whether the subdivision into consulting rooms imposed a greater burden on the servient land or constituted an intensification of use that would alter the scope of protection under the law.

2. Whether the loss of light amounted to actionable nuisance: The test involved assessing whether the reduction substantially diminished the comfortable enjoyment of the premises, including consideration of expert assessments and the usability of the affected rooms.

3. How to calculate damages in lieu of an injunction: The court considered both economic and amenity-based losses, including potential negotiation leverage and psychological impacts of increased enclosure.

Judgement Overview

Mr Justice Millett ruled in favour of the claimant and awarded £8,000 in general damages. His judgment was grounded in several key principles that now form a crucial part of rights to light case law.

Key Legal Findings : Rights to Light Case Law Carr-Saunders v McNeil

1. The Easement Is to the Building, Not Specific Rooms

Millett J reaffirmed that under section 3 of the Prescription Act 1832, a right to light is acquired in respect of a building, not to a particular internal layout. Internal alterations do not extinguish the right, provided the apertures have enjoyed 20 years of uninterrupted light.

2. Subdivision into Rooms Does Not Increase the Burden

The judge held that the rights attach to the apertures, not the internal layout. Courts consider internal reconfiguration a reasonable adaptation that does not increase the burden on the servient tenement, provided the light continues to serve the same structure.

3. Application of the 50-50 Rule Is Not Absolute

Although the defendants’ expert applied the 50-50 rule, Millett J criticised rigid adherence to it. He clarified that it is merely a guideline and courts must assess the sufficiency of light in practical terms, considering how the space is likely to be used.

4. Actual Impact on the Use of the Premises

Expert analysis showed that the rear rooms (Green Room and Red Room) experienced a drop in light from 55–57% to under 7%. Despite the larger area passing the 50-50 rule, these rear rooms became virtually unusable, leading to a finding of actionable nuisance.

Damages in Lieu of Injunction

The plaintiff withdrew his claim for a mandatory injunction. Instead, the court assessed general damages by considering:

Loss of amenity, including sky view and natural light.

The hypothetical bargaining position Carr-Saunders could have taken.

The economic benefit to the defendants, though not fully quantified.

The award of £8,000 reflected a balance between these factors, drawing on the equitable reasoning in Wrotham Park Estate v Parkside Homes and Bracewell v Appleby.

Key Takeaways: Rights to Light Case Law Carr-Saunders v McNeil

Rights to light attach to a building, not to specific rooms. Internal layout changes don’t invalidate the easement.

Subdividing a space does not increase the burden on the servient owner if the light continues to serve the same building envelope and apertures.

The 50-50 rule is a useful but non-determinative test. Courts consider whether the premises remain usable for ordinary purposes.

Reflected light and optical illusions are disregarded. Only the impact on direct light matters for rights to light claims.

Damages may include general loss of amenity, not just measurable rental losses, especially when awarded in lieu of injunction.

Future reasonable uses of a property matter—owners are entitled to preserve light for evolving layouts that do not constitute extraordinary or unusual use.

Conclusion : Rights to Light Case Law Carr-Saunders v McNeil

Carr-Saunders v McNeil plays a vital role in modern rights to light case law.

It reminds property owners, developers, and legal practitioners that courts adopt a practical, flexible approach when assessing whether interference with light is actionable.

Subdivisions into smaller spaces are commonplace in modern commercial and residential uses, and this case ensures that the law adapts to such evolving property configurations.

Crucially, this decision underscores that rights to light are not frozen in time. They protect future, reasonable enjoyment of a property, not just its historical configuration.

Developers must remain alert to the risks of liability where neighbouring windows have enjoyed uninterrupted light for over 20 years—even if those windows now serve newly configured interiors.

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 Fact Sheet

What is a Right to Light

Rights to Light Case Law Regan v Paul

Rights to Light Case Law Tamares v Fairpoint

Contact : Rights to Light Case Law Carr-Saunders v McNeil

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.