Black v Scottish Temperance Life Assurance Company

JurisdictionIreland
CourtHigh Court
JudgeBarton, J.,H. L.
Judgment Date24 March 1908
Docket Number(1905. No. 353.)
Date24 March 1908
Black
and
Scottish Temperance Life Assurance Co.

Barton, J.

Appeal.

H. L.

(1905. No. 353.)

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE CHANCERY DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL.

1908.

Light — Obstruction — Substantial interference — Actionable nuisance — Substituted light — Mandatory injunction.

Held, on appeal by the plaintiff to the House of Lords, that the order of the Court of Appeal should be reversed, and the order of Barton, J., restored.

Per Lord Robertson: The Court would not be justified in holding that an actionable obstruction of ancient light could be justified by the substitution of light reflected from a white surface, when the injured owner had no legal right to the continuance of these newly created conditions.

The plaintiff in this action was a wholesale manufacturer of ready-made clothing, and carried on his business in certain premises known as 3 and 5 James's Street, South, Belfast, which were held by him under a lease dated 27th June, 1884. The premises were erected about the month of February, 1885, by the plaintiff's predecessors in title, Messrs. McCrum, Watson, and Mercer, linen merchants, who had used the premises for the purposes of their business previous to their assignment to the plaintiff, on 31st December, 1901, of the lessee's interest in the premises, which the plaintiff purchased for a sum of £1950.

The premises in question had a frontage of 44 feet to James's Street, South, and a measurement in the rear of 44 feet, and extended back from front to rear 88 feet. The buildings thereon consisted of a main building, having a frontage of 44 feet to James's Street, South, and extending back from front to rear 54 feet, and having a height of 48 feet to the eave. In the rear there was a one-story building 12 feet high to the eave and 20 feet 9 inches to the ridge, extending in length 44 feet, and extending in breadth 34 feet. This one-story building was covered with a glass roof; and in the wall separating it from the ground floor of the main building there were three windows and a door. The windows in James's Street faced south, and the windows in the rear faced north.

The following rooms were included in the plaintiff's premises:— (1) the room formed by the said one-storied building, called the cutting-room, and lit by light coming through the glass roof; (2) the room on the ground-floor of the main building, called the stock-room, lit on the north side by borrowed light, passing from the cutting room through the three windows in the separating wall, and on the south side by two windows looking into James's Street, South; (3) the room on the first floor of the main building, called the examining-room, lit on the south side by six windows looking into James's Street, South, and on the north side by five windows looking over the roof of the cutting-room; (4) the room on the second floor, called the finishing-room, lit on the south side by six windows looking into James's Street, South, and on the north side by four windows looking over the roof of the cutting-room; (5) the room on the third floor, called the sewing-machine-room, lit on the south side by six windows looking into James's Street, South, and on the north side by four windows looking over the roof of the cutting-room. Each of the four rooms in the main building was 12 feet in height, 40 feet in width, and in depth from north to south about 50 feet. Besides the above-mentioned windows, there was in each of the floors of the main building, and in line with the windows on that floor, a window lighting the staircase.

The plaintiff employed in this building, on a daily average, from eighty to 100 workers, and turned out about 120,000 suits per year. About 75 per cent. of the trade was in juvenile suits of ordinary navy blue serge. The method of conducting his business, prior to the erection of the defendants' new buildings, was as follows:— Samples of suits were submitted to prospective buyers in the examining-room, and the buyers selected from the samples, according to their opinion as to the best shade, texture, and quality, in accordance with their customers' demands. When an order according to sample was given, the plaintiff purchased webs of cloth of the same shade, texture, and material from wholesale firms in England and elsewhere. These webs, when delivered to the plaintiff, were examined in the stock-room with the sample, to ascertain how far the material was equal to the samples in all respects. If the web was not according to sample, it was returned, otherwise it was retained in the stockroom until required for the manufacture of the suits. When the time arrived for making the suits, the web, according to sample, was brought from the stock-room to the cutting-room, where it was cut up into several pieces required for the garment. Numbers of the same pieces were cut out at one time by means of revolving knives making 300 revolutions per minute. When the cloth was so cut, the several pieces were sent up to the third floor, the sewing-machine-room, where the suits were stitched together. They were then brought down to the second floor, the finishing-room, where thread and buttons were matched, and the suits lined, finished, and pressed. The finished goods were then brought down to the first floor, the examining-room, where they were examined for defects of colour and texture, or bad stitching, lining, or finishing. If correct, they were then sent to the customer as required.

A southern light was, according to the case made by the plaintiff, not suitable for the examining of cloth or for the matching of colour; and all the work in this connexion was carried on at some of the northern windows in the rear of his premises. Prior to the erection of the defendants' new buildings, the light entering the northern windows of the plaintiff's main premises and the cutting-room was obstructed on the north-west by old buildings occupying the site of the defendants' new buildings. The site so occupied was a rectangular piece of ground, having a frontage on the south to James's Street, South, on the west to Bedford Street, and on the north to Donegall Square, South. Its eastern boundary adjoined and extended along the western boundary of the plaintiff's premises from James's Street, South, to Donegall Square, South. Upon this site there was a covered gateway, 15 feet wide and 9 feet 2 inches high to the eave, running from James's Street, South, along the western boundary of the plaintiff's premises for a distance from James's Street, South, of about 90 feet, and separating from the plaintiff's premises the old buildings which occupied the rest of this site. These old buildings had a height of 45 feet 6 inches to the ridge of the roof, and 36 feet 9 inches to the eave.

According to the plaintiff, prior to the erection of the defendants' new buildings, good ordinary light, sufficient for the purposes of his business, entered the cutting-room and the stock-room, and the first and second windows, counting from the west, of the examining-room and the finishing-room and machine-room. This light was mainly supplied by the light coming from the northwest over the defendants' old buildings. The light entering the third, fourth, and fifth windows in the examining-room, and to a less degree the light entering the third and fourth windows in the finishing-room, was, according to the plaintiff, defective, and not suitable for the plaintiff's business, owing to obstruction by the buildings on the north-east. The light required for carrying on the plaintiff's business was a good ordinary light.

Some time in the year 1904 the plaintiff ascertained that the defendants had purchased the premises forming the site of their new buildings, and intended erecting thereon a building 15 feet nearer to the plaintiff's premises than the old buildings, and having a height of 72 feet to the eave instead of 36 feet 9 inches. Thereupon the plaintiff wrote to the defendants, cautioning them against proceeding with such building on the lines contemplated, as the light entering the plaintiff's premises was essential for the carrying on of his trade, and warning the defendants that if they proceeded with their buildings on the lines contemplated, the plaintiff would have to apply to the Court for protection. The defendants replied that they were indemnified against claims for ancient light by Mr. W. Ewing, from whom they had purchased the premises, and that they could do nothing in the matter. After a further considerable correspondence the defendants finally wrote, stating that they could do nothing in the matter unless the plaintiff could settle with Mr. Ewing, and suggesting that the plaintiff should put forward the amount of compensation he was entitled to. The plaintiff replied, objecting to their suggestion that he should apply to Mr. Ewing, and repudiating the assumption that he was merely claiming compensation, and that he would apply for an injunction.

The writ was issued on the 6th April, 1905.

At the date of the trial the defendants' new building, covering the above-mentioned site, including the 15-feet gateway, had been erected at a cost of £32,000 to its full height, namely, 72 feet to the eave. Rising to this height, the eastern wall of the defendants' new building was in contact with the plaintiff's main building. Evidence was produced by the plaintiff to prove that in the northwesterly direction, from which across the defendants' old building the best supply of light had reached the windows on the lower floors of the plaintiff's building, the increased height of the defendants' new building had increased the average angle of intercepted light at the points and in the degrees following, viz., at a point in the glass of the first window of the first floor, on line with the examining table in that room, from 24 deg. 51 min. to 57 deg. 44 min.; at a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Tamares (Vincent Square) Ltd v Fairpoint Properties (Vincent Square) Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 9 Marzo 2007
    ...accompli had taken place, thereby taking a risk that it would not be granted an injunction. Blackv. Scottish Temperance Assurance Co [1908] 1 IR 541 62 Out of deference to Mr Wonnacott's forceful submissions on behalf of the Claimant, I need to deal with time House of Lords case of Black v......
  • Solomon v Red Bank Restaurant, Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 8 Marzo 1938
    ...and after hearing Mr. McCarthy, I shall make the order that I have announced. (1) 64 L. J. Ch. 491. (2) [1898] 1 I. R. 161. (3) [1908] 1 I. R. 541. (1) [1895] 1 Ch. 287. (2) [1908] 1 I. R. 541. (3) [1904] A. C. 179, at p. 192. (4) [1924] A. C. 851. (5) 28 Ch. D. 103. (1) 8 Mod. (2) [1891] 2......
  • Byrne v Fox and Dublin Board of Assistance
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 17 Diciembre 1938
    ...734. (4) [1895] 1 Q. B. 749, at p. 753. (1) [1896] 1 I. R. 76. (2) 40 Ch. D. 80. (1) 3 A. C. 709. (2) ]1895] 1 Ch. 287, at p. 322. (3) [1908] 1 I. R. 541, at p. (1) [1896] 1 I. R. 76, at p. 107. (1) [1896] 1 I. R. 76. (2) 14 Ves. 526. (1) [1896] 1 I. R. 76. (1) 27 Ch. D. 71. (1) 14 Ves. 526. ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT