Phipps v Pears [1965] 1 QB 76, CA
Negative easement of protection against the weather by a neighbour’s house
Facts
The plaintiff and defendant both owned houses which were adjacent to one another, on Market Street, Warwick. Phipps did not insulate his house, including the wall which bordered the house of the Pears. The reason was that he felt the houses on either side provided his house with enough insulation. Pears demolished his house. As a result, Phipps house became exposed to the elements and cracks appeared on the wall, as a result of exposure to the weather. Phipps started the action seeking compensation for the damage to his house, claiming that he had a prescriptive right to have his house protected from the elements by the neighbouring house. Essentially, he claimed a negative easement which prevented the adjoining house from being demolished.
Issue
The issue in this case was whether it was possible for the owner of one house to claim a right to have his house protected by the elements from another house and therefore, whether it was possible for the claim negative easement against an adjoining house being torn down to exist?
Decision/Outcome
The court rejected the claim and held that a mere loss of some benefit derived to one’s property by an action of his neighbour on his own property as not sufficient ground to claim a negative easement.
“Every man is entitled to pull down his house if he likes. If it exposes your house to the weather, that is your misfortune. It is no wrong on his part. Likewise, every man is entitled to cut down his trees if he likes, even if it leaves you without shelter from the wind or shade from the sun, see the decision of the Master of the Rolls in Ireland. There is no such easement known to the law as an easement to be protected from the weather.” (Lord Denning)
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Phipps v Pears [1965] 1 QB 76. The principle established — that there is no easement known to law to be protected from the weather, and that negative easements will not readily be recognised by the courts — remains good law. No subsequent legislation or case law has overturned or materially qualified this principle. The law on negative easements in England and Wales continues to be restrictive, and Phipps v Pears is still regularly cited as authority for the refusal to extend the categories of negative easements. Readers should note that while the article is accurate as a case summary, the broader context of easements is also governed by the Land Registration Act 2002 and, in relation to implied easements, by the case of Wood v Waddington [2015] EWCA Civ 538 and the continued application of section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925, though none of these developments affect the specific negative easement principle in this case.
