Dance v Triplow and another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1992) 17 EG 103-108(5)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: CA 7 November 1991. An appeal against damages for interruption to a right to light was allowed. The plaintiff, though taking legal action, which began some two years after approaching his solicitor, had not communicated his non-acquiescence to the appellant, thus failing to discharge the burden of proof that he had not submitted or acquiesced in the interruption to the right to light for one year at the commencement of the present action according to Prescription Act 1832 s4.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS46406 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 58079-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
CA 7 November 1991. An appeal against damages for interruption to a right to light was allowed. The plaintiff, though taking legal action, which began some two years after approaching his solicitor, had not communicated his non-acquiescence to the appellant, thus failing to discharge the burden of proof that he had not submitted or acquiesced in the interruption to the right to light for one year at the commencement of the present action according to Prescription Act 1832 s4.