RHJ Ltd V FT Patten (Holdings) and another [electronic resource]
RHJ Ltd V FT Patten (Holdings) and another [electronic resource]
- 2007
[2007] EWHC 1655 (Ch), 13 July 2007. In the terms of a lease the landlord reserved the right to build on land adjacent to the property. A clause excluded the implied grant of any easement and did not expressly grant any right to light. However the property had enjoyed 20 years' light between its construction and the date when a light obstruction notice was registered. The issue to be determined was whether the right to light was enjoyed by consent or agreement so that it could not be deemed absolute and indefeasible under the Prescription Act 1832 s3. "Held": Case law did not show that the lease had to refer specifically to light. Clauses dealing with the future could be said to exclude the right to light if, on a fair reading, construction that they permitted might be expected to restrict it. A lease such as this which allowed a landlord to build was not likely to grant the right to light if it was not expressly stated. In this case it was not found that the tenant had an absolute and indefeasible right to light. Preliminary issue determined.
RHJ LTD V FT PATTEN (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER
RHJ LTD V FT PATTEN (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER
PRESCRIPTION ACT 1832 S3
England and Wales--1543-
[2007] EWHC 1655 (Ch), 13 July 2007. In the terms of a lease the landlord reserved the right to build on land adjacent to the property. A clause excluded the implied grant of any easement and did not expressly grant any right to light. However the property had enjoyed 20 years' light between its construction and the date when a light obstruction notice was registered. The issue to be determined was whether the right to light was enjoyed by consent or agreement so that it could not be deemed absolute and indefeasible under the Prescription Act 1832 s3. "Held": Case law did not show that the lease had to refer specifically to light. Clauses dealing with the future could be said to exclude the right to light if, on a fair reading, construction that they permitted might be expected to restrict it. A lease such as this which allowed a landlord to build was not likely to grant the right to light if it was not expressly stated. In this case it was not found that the tenant had an absolute and indefeasible right to light. Preliminary issue determined.
RHJ LTD V FT PATTEN (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER
RHJ LTD V FT PATTEN (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER
PRESCRIPTION ACT 1832 S3
England and Wales--1543-