Phipps v Pears
There is no easement to be protected from the weather by a neighbouring building.
Facts
Two neighbouring houses had been built so that the wall of one was against the wall of the other, but the walls were not bonded together. When the owner of one house demolished it, the wall of the other house, which had never been weatherproofed, was exposed to the weather, and rain got into it, causing cracks in the frost. The owner of the remaining house claimed that he had an easement of protection from the weather.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that there was no such easement. Lord Denning MR said that a right to have one's house protected from the weather by a neighbour's house is a negative easement, and the courts should be very chary of creating new negative easements, because they restrict the neighbour's freedom to use his own land, for example by demolishing his house. The remedy is to obtain a restrictive covenant. The court distinguished the right of support, which is a recognised easement.
Related cases on easements
- Batchelor v Marlow [2001] EWCA Civ 1051, [2003] 1 WLR 764
- Copeland v Greenhalf [1952] Ch 488
- Dalton v Angus & Co (1881) 6 App Cas 740
- Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131
- Hill v Tupper (1863) 2 H & C 121
- Mills v Silver [1991] Ch 271
- Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42, [2007] 1 WLR 2620
- Nickerson v Barraclough [1981] Ch 426
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
