Phipps v Pears [1964] is an English land law case, concerning easements.

The court held the law will not imply or invent a new form of negative easement to prevent a neighbour's wall being pulled down which offers some protection (and no special agreement or covenant is in place).

To be recognised under the Law of Property Act 1925 section 62, the right has to be capable of existing as an easement.

[1] The case, so put, raises the question whether there is aright known to the law to be protected - by your neighbour's house - from the weather.

The one building, by its weight, exerts a thrust, not only downwards, but also sideways on to the adjoining building or the adjoining land, and is thus doing something to the neighbour's land, exerting a thrust on it, see Dalton v Angus (1881) 6 A.C. at p.793 by Lord Selborne, Lord Chancellor.

The reason underlying these instances is that if such an easement were to be permitted, it would unduly restrict your neighbour in his enjoyment of his own land.

It would hamper legitimate development, see Dalton v Angus (1881) 6 App Cas 740 at 824 per Lord Blackburn....

The only way for an owner to protect himself is by getting a covenant from his neighbour that he will not pull down his house or cut down his trees.

I do not think this argument avails the plaintiff for the simple reason that, in order for Section 62 to apply, the right or advantage must be one which is known to the law, in this sense, that it is capable of being granted at law so as to be binding on all successors in title, even those who take without notice, see Wright v Macadam, 1949, 2 KB, 747.

A fine view, or an expanse open to the winds may be an advantage to a house, but it would not pass under section 62.