Rights to Light Case Law Price v Hilditch

Rights to Light Case Law Price v Hilditch (1930) remains a significant authority in UK rights to light jurisprudence.

It reaffirms that once an easement of light is acquired under section 3 of the Prescription Act 1832, its scope is not limited by the internal use or configuration of the room that benefits from the light.

This case also clarifies when courts may favour damages over a mandatory injunction, applying principles from Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co. (1895).

Background

Walter Henry Price, the plaintiff, owned 19 Surrey Road, Margate — a freehold house constructed and continuously occupied since 1907.

The property had long benefited from unobstructed light to its north-facing kitchen and scullery windows. These windows faced a narrow passage separating his property from No. 17, owned by the defendant, Nellie Hilditch.

Hilditch, needing more space, commenced works in January 1929 to construct a new wall directly adjacent to Price's north windows. Her builders raised a pre-existing dwarf boundary wall from 3'9" to a full height of 23 feet without giving prior notice. By early February, the structure had reached its intended height, drastically reducing light to the plaintiff’s kitchen and scullery.

Price, through his solicitor and surveyor, objected and sought a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to demolish the offending wall. He also pursued damages for interference with his easement of light.

Legal Issues

The Court had to consider two main legal questions:

1. Did the defendant's construction interfere with the plaintiff’s acquired right to light?

2. If so, was the plaintiff entitled to a mandatory injunction or merely damages?

The defendant argued that although the scullery's light had diminished, it remained serviceable for typical scullery use. The plaintiff contended that the interference significantly impaired the room’s usability, constituting a legal nuisance.

Evidence and Findings

The Court considered extensive expert and lay testimony. Both sides presented surveyors and residents to testify about lighting conditions before and after the wall’s erection. The Court noted:

The scullery previously had exceptionally high levels of natural light.

Post-construction, the wall blocked direct light, increasing obscuration from 24° to 73° from the horizontal.

The scullery floor, once largely exposed to visible sky, now received virtually no sky visibility.

Despite arguments by the defendant that reflected light (bouncing off the new wall) partially compensated for the loss, the Court firmly rejected this. Justice Maugham held that reflected light is irrelevant in assessing rights to light, citing Dent v Auction Mart Co. (1866) and established case law.

The Principle: Use of the Room Does Not Limit the Right

The court addressed a pivotal issue: whether the easement should be assessed based on the room’s function—in this case, a scullery. Justice Maugham followed Colls v Home and Colonial Stores Ltd [1904] AC 179 and the dicta of Lord Davey, asserting that:

"The easement is for access of light to the building... it does not seem to me to depend on the use which is made of the chambers in it."

The nature or purpose of the room, or any internal layout, does not restrict the extent of the light right. Once a person acquires a right under the Prescription Act 1832, they become entitled to sufficient light for the ordinary purposes of inhabitancy or business, regardless of the room’s historical use.

Decision and Remedy

Justice Maugham concluded that the scullery light had been materially and unreasonably reduced. He held that:

The interference constituted a legal nuisance.

The plaintiff had established a valid easement of light.

The kitchen had not suffered comparable loss, largely retaining adequate direct light, and therefore did not justify relief.

However, the Court declined to grant a mandatory injunction, reasoning that:

There was no evidence the defendant acted in bad faith or deliberately attempted to “steal a march” on the plaintiff or the Court.

The scullery would continue to function adequately with moderate use of electric lighting.

The cost and disruption of demolition would be disproportionate to the plaintiff's loss.

Applying Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co., the Court awarded damages in lieu of an injunction, and ordered an inquiry to assess compensation for the interference with the scullery’s light.

Key Takeaways

1. Right to Light Not Limited by Room Use

Once a right to light is acquired under the Prescription Act 1832, its scope is not confined to the historic use or purpose of the room. Whether it’s a scullery, study, or bedroom, the test is whether the light suffices for ordinary use.

2. Reflected Light Is Irrelevant

The Court reaffirmed that reflected light — such as from a white wall — does not count when determining whether a right to light has been infringed. Only direct and lateral access to natural light matters.

3. Loss Must Be Material

To succeed, the claimant must show a substantial interference. In this case, the scullery lost nearly all sky visibility, clearly meeting the threshold of a legal nuisance.

4. Damages Instead of Demolition

Even when rights to light are breached, a mandatory injunction is not automatic. Where:

The defendant did not act oppressively,

The interference can be remedied by artificial lighting,

And financial compensation is adequate,

… courts may award damages instead of ordering demolition, as per Shelfer principles.

5. Expert and Lay Evidence Are Both Crucial

The Court relied heavily on diagrams, angles of elevation, and expert opinion, but placed high value on lay testimony regarding real-world usability before and after the interference.

Conclusion

Rights to Light Case Law Price v Hilditch serves as a foundational case in UK rights to light law. It underscores that an acquired easement protects the function and usability of space — not merely the visual presence of light. While plaintiffs can vindicate their rights in court, the remedy will depend on the seriousness of the loss and the proportionality of relief.

Why the snowy image for this post?

When the plaintiff, Walter Price, discovered that his neighbour was undertaking building work that might restrict his light he instructed a local architect and surveyor to inspect the work. The surveyor, George Holliday, was unable to visit the site in January of 1930 due to snow. Later in Court, the claimant argued that the defendants rushed to complete the development to 'steal a march upon the Court'.

The Judge firmly rejected the argument and did not accept that the defendant acted high-handedly or sought to oust the Court’s jurisdiction. Instead, Maugham J reflected on the unfortunate weather that prevented the plaintiff's surveyor visiting site.

What is clear is that the same issues of (alleged) poor conduct existed back in 1930 as they did in the more recent case of Ottercroft v Scandia. Poor neighbourly conduct, if proven, can tip the scales making it more likely that the Courts will grant an injunction.

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 Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting

Rights to Light Case Law Colls v Home & Colonial Stores

Contact : Rights to Light Case Law Price v Hilditch

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.