Rights to Light Case Law Ough v King

Rights to Light Case Law Ough v King - this 1967 Court of Appeal decision stands as a significant turning point in English rights to light jurisprudence.

This case not only reaffirms the principle that a dominant owner's prescriptive right to light must be respected, but also advances the law by recognising that standards of what constitutes "sufficient light" evolve with societal expectations.

The court upheld a trial judge’s decision to award damages, despite expert evidence that appeared to support the developer’s defence, underscoring the increasing role of judicial discretion and modern perceptions of comfort and amenity.

Background

Mrs Alice Wenda Ough owned 102 Darnley Road, Gravesend, Kent—a residential dwelling with a ground-floor room she used as a workspace for her role in the United Fundamentalist Church. Her work involved the production and dissemination of religious literature, assisted by volunteers. She had acquired the property in 1958.

In 1963, Mr David George King, a builder, purchased the adjoining property at 100 Darnley Road. He undertook works to convert his house into self-contained flats. His alterations included a rear extension at both ground and first floor levels, which replaced a greenhouse with a kitchen and added a first-floor bathroom. These changes, Ough claimed, significantly reduced the natural light entering her breakfast room through two windows facing the defendant's property.

Mrs Ough alleged that her light had been substantially diminished and brought a claim in nuisance, seeking an injunction and damages. She asserted a right to light based on long-standing enjoyment under the Prescription Act 1832 and, alternatively, through a lost or destroyed deed of grant.

County Court Judgment

The trial was heard in Gravesend County Court before Judge Glazebrook. Mrs Ough claimed that the obstruction to her light amounted to actionable nuisance and sought either an injunction requiring demolition of the extension or damages up to £400.

Her witnesses, including a consulting architect, stated that the room had become noticeably less comfortable due to the reduction in light.

Mr King’s defence rested heavily on the expert evidence of (our very own!) Brian Anstey, a prominent surveyor and chairman of the Daylight Panel of the British Standards Institute. Anstey based his analysis on the Waldram method, a then widely accepted objective standard which assessed whether at least half the room at table height received one lumen of light.

Anstey calculated that, before the works, 100¼ square feet of the 156½ sq ft room received adequate light; after the development, 80¼ sq ft remained sufficiently illuminated. This represented just over 51% of the room—so, under the Waldram test, he still deemed the room 'adequately lit.'

However, the judge took a broader view. He conducted a site visit on a grey February afternoon and, although he noted the room was not as dark as expected, he concluded that the standards of lighting expected by “ordinary people” in 1967 were higher than those prevailing in the 1950s.

He observed:

“I think the notions of mankind on the subject of light have changed and are changing... I do not think that ordinary people would accept now for a living room and office on the outskirts of a town like Gravesend the daylight standard which was accepted 12 years ago for an office in the centre of the City of London.”

The judge held that although the physical loss of one-fifth of the light was not necessarily significant in itself, the residual light was insufficient by modern standards for comfortable use.

Consequently, he found an actionable interference with Ough’s easement and awarded £300 in damages, calculated on the basis of diminution in the property’s market value.

Appeal and Court of Appeal Decision

Mr King appealed, arguing that:

The judge had wrongly applied a higher standard of lighting for 1967 than had been accepted in earlier cases.

The judge’s conclusion conflicted with the expert evidence and the judge’s own findings that the plaintiff and her witnesses had exaggerated the loss.

There was no legal basis for rejecting the Waldram standard.

The damages awarded were excessive.

Lord Denning MR, giving the leading judgment, dismissed the appeal. He acknowledged that the Waldram method provided a useful rule of thumb but held that it was not a rule of law. He stated:

“It is not every diminution of light which gives an action. It is only when it is so diminished as to be a nuisance... [meaning] the room is rendered uncomfortable according to the ordinary notions of mankind.”

Lord Denning emphasised that the court could take into account:

The changing expectations of comfort and natural light;

The local context (i.e., the standards in a residential area like Gravesend, as opposed to central London offices);

The judge’s own observation of the premises;

And that expert evidence, while valuable, was not conclusive.

He supported the view that the Waldram 50:50 rule, while influential, should not bind the court:

“In these days I would not myself be prepared to regard the 50:50 rule of Mr. Waldram as a universal rule. In some cases a higher standard may be reasonably required.”

The Court of Appeal also upheld the measure of damages. Although the estimated additional cost of artificial lighting was £60, the trial judge rightly assessed damages based on the diminution in property value, noting that buyers naturally prefer better-lit homes.

Danckwerts LJ and Diplock LJ concurred. Diplock LJ directly addressed the suggestion that the Waldram rule had the force of law, rejecting it:

“This appeal has really been presented on the basis that... there is now a rule of law that no one is or ever will be entitled to more light than amounts to not less than one lumen over 50 percent of a room at table level... The 50:50 rule is no doubt a convenient rule of thumb... [but] the real question is that which has been stated by my Lords...”

Key Legal Principles - Rights to Light Case Law Ough v King

This case solidified several important legal principles in rights to light litigation:

Evolving Standards: Courts may consider how societal expectations of lighting comfort change over time. There is no fixed standard of sufficiency.

No Legal Sanctity to Waldram: The Waldram method is a helpful tool but not legally binding.

Judicial Observation Matters: A judge’s firsthand viewing of premises can be highly persuasive, especially where opinions on comfort and usability diverge.

Locality Matters: The type and setting of the property (residential, office, urban, suburban) influences what is considered adequate lighting.

Damages Not Limited to Lighting Cost: Courts may award damages based on the impact on property value, not merely utility cost.

Partial Obstruction Can Still Be Nuisance: Even a 20% loss of light can support a claim if the remaining light falls below acceptable standards (see Allen v Greenwood 1979).

Key Takeaways – Rights to Light Case Law Ough v King

Contextual Judgement: What counts as an actionable loss of light depends on the context and is ultimately a matter of fact and degree.

No Absolute Metrics: The courts are not bound by the 50:50 Waldram rule. Instead, they evaluate comfort and usability using common-sense and evolving public expectations.

Judges Can Overrule Experts: Expert opinion is influential but not decisive—especially where it conflicts with modern standards or a judge's own observations.

Damages Reflect Property Impact: Even without a loss of function, a measurable decline in a property’s appeal due to loss of light can justify significant damages.

Important Precedent: The case remains a cornerstone authority for evaluating rights to light disputes in modern residential contexts.

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.

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

Rights to Light Case Law - Resources

Rights to Light Assessment : A Detailed Guide

What is a Right to Light

Rights to Case Law Allen v Greenwood

Rights to Light Case Law Midtown v City of London

Contact : Rights to Light Case Law Ough v King

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.