[2009] EWCA Civ 21, 29 January 2009. An agreement's terms may be more limited than they seem and might not cover changed circumstances. Appellant developers (S and B) appealed against declarations made in favour of a respondent landowner (G) that it was entitled to an easement of light and that a light obstruction notice lodged by S should be cancelled. G agreed not to interfere with an initial development on adjacent land, including not taking action in relation to its rights of light in 1999. S & B compulsorily purchased G's building to demolish it for another project in 2007. G claimed compensation for this compulsory purchase on the basis that the building had rights of light. The developers argued that G gave up its right of light in the 1999 agreement. Held. Appeal dismissed. The agreement was not the kind referred to in section 3 of the 1832 Prescription Act. While G agreed not to take action, it had not abandoned or agreed to abandon its rights. The 2007 development was a subsequent redevelopment, not part of the original development; compulsory purchase went beyond the development described in the agreement.