There was a conflict of views as regards the nature and extent of rights of light acquired by prescription. One view was’ that the enjoyment of light for a period of twenty years there could be acquired an indefeasible right to the enjoyment of a like amount of right in the future.
The other view was that nothing constituted an infringement of right of light which did not amount to an actionable nuisance, so that the amplitude of previous enjoyment was no measure of the right acquired thereby.
The conflict was resolved by the decision in Colls vs. Home and Colonial Stores, (1904) A.C. 179 and Foil v. Kine, (1907) A.C.I. It was decided that the amount of light enjoyed during the period of prescription should not be taken in consideration in measuring the amount of light to which the dominant owner is entitled.
Image Source: cache-blog.credit.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
He does not obtain by his easement a right to all the light he has enjoyed. He obtain a right to so much of it as will suffice for the ordinary purposes of inhabitancy or business according to the ordinary notions of mankind, having regard to the locality and surroundings.
Where there has been an interference with ancient lights, no action can be maintained unless the comfort and convenience of dominant premises have been affected considering their nature and locality, and the amount of light still left.
The only amount of light for a house which can be claimed by prescription of by length of time without an actual grant is such an amount as is reasonably necessary for the convenient and comfortable habitation of the house.