Rights to Light Case Law Colls v Home & Colonial

The Rights to Light Case Law of Colls v Home & Colonial Stores Ltd (1904) is a foundational decision in English rights to light jurisprudence.

This House of Lords ruling set a vital precedent by clarifying when an interference with light becomes legally actionable, thereby reshaping the common law understanding of what constitutes a nuisance in the context of light deprivation.

Background and Legal Context

The respondents, Home & Colonial Stores Ltd, were lessees of commercial premises on Worship Street in Shoreditch, London.

The appellant, Colls, intended to construct a new 42-foot-high building directly opposite. The street separating the properties was 41 feet wide.

The respondents feared that the new structure would obstruct light reaching their offices, particularly two out of five ground floor windows used by clerks. The room was deep (50 feet) with no rear windows, requiring artificial lighting even before the obstruction.

Initially, the trial judge, Joyce J., found that although the light would be somewhat reduced, it would not materially affect the usefulness or comfort of the premises.

He therefore dismissed the claim. However, the Court of Appeal reversed his decision, issuing a mandatory injunction to dismantle the structure. Colls appealed to the House of Lords.

The Judgment of the House of Lords

The Lords overturned the Court of Appeal, reinstating Joyce J.’s dismissal of the claim. The key legal development from this decision was the reaffirmation that:

“To constitute an actionable obstruction of ancient lights, it is not enough that the light is less than before. There must be a substantial deprivation—enough to render the occupation of the house uncomfortable according to the ordinary notions of mankind.”

Lord Halsbury LC cautioned against an overly rigid application of property rights in light, pointing out the absurdity of blocking all new construction simply because it marginally reduces a neighbour’s daylight.

He rejected the argument that the right to light is absolute or that any reduction gives rise to action. Instead, it was reaffirmed as an easement measured by reasonableness and common experience.

Lord Macnaghten elaborated that the right to light is not a proprietary right to light itself, but a right to be free from a nuisance caused by a significant deprivation of it.

He added that artificial uses or alterations that require abnormal light do not extend the dominant owner's legal protection unless those conditions have been enjoyed for the full prescriptive period. As he put it:

"The right of a person who is owner or occupier of a building with windows, privileged as ancient lights ... is nothing more or less than the right to prevent the owner or occupier of an adjoining tenement from building or placing on his own land anything which has the effect of illegally obstructing or obscuring the light."

Similarly, Lord Davey underscored that a legal claim must rest on an established nuisance—not a technical or minor interference.

He held that alterations to buildings or special uses requiring extraordinary light do not automatically extend the rights enjoyed under the Prescription Act 1832 unless used as such for the required 20-year period. He stated:

"I agree with the Vice-Chancellor that it would be contrary to the principles of the law relating to easements that the burden on the servient tenement should be increased or varied from time to time at the will of the owner of the dominant tenement."

Lord Lindley pointed out the inconsistency in previous case law and affirmed that a right to light is not a right to the entire light previously received, but only to that which is reasonably required for ordinary use or habitation.

Legal Principles Established - Rights to Light Case Law of Colls v Home & Colonial

The judgment set out a practical test: whether the interference with light amounts to a nuisance, considering ordinary uses of the building.

This was a key shift from the then-popular notion that any reduction in light was actionable. Importantly, the ruling confirmed that the Prescription Act 1832 did not change the nature of the right—only the method of establishing it.

Practical Consequences

The decision had a significant impact on urban development and property rights, striking a balance between protecting established easements and enabling new construction.

By introducing a test based on comfort and beneficial use, rather than an abstract measurement of light loss, the case provided clarity and flexibility for judges, surveyors, and property owners alike.

Key Takeaways - Rights to Light Case Law Colls v Home & Colonial

Substantial Interference Required : Rights to light are only infringed when the loss is substantial enough to affect comfort or usability in a common-sense way.

Not All Light Loss Is Actionable : A mere reduction in light is insufficient to support a legal claim. The impact must be assessed relative to ordinary expectations of light use.

Use and Building Configuration Matter : Courts will not protect special or extraordinary light needs (e.g., photography studios or deep rooms) unless that specific use has been consistent for over 20 years.

Prescription Act Does Not Enlarge Rights : The Act merely sets a legal timeframe (20 years) for acquiring easements; it doesn’t alter their scope or nature.

Practical Application Prevails : The judgment endorses the use of practical assessments (such as the 45-degree rule) as guides, but ultimately defers to common experience and reasonableness.

The Right to Light Case Law of Colls v Home & Colonial Stores Ltd remains one of the most important authorities in rights to light case law.

It helped define the limits of the ancient lights doctrine in modern urban settings and continues to guide judges, surveyors, developers, and planners seeking clarity in Rights to Light Case Law Colls v Home & Colonial.

Rights to Law Case Law - Resources

Rights to Light Fact Sheet

What is a Right to Light

Rights to Light Case Law Regan v Paul

Contact : Rights to Light Case Law Colls v Home & Colonial

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.