000			01019cab a2200217 4500
001			ABS46406
008			090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u58079
041			_aeng
245			_aDance v Triplow and another
260			_c1992
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1992) 17 EG 103-108(5)
520			_aCA 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.
650			_aBURDEN OF PROOF
650			_aPRESCRIPTION ACT 1832 S4
650			_aRIGHTS TO LIGHT
690			_aHIGHWAYS AND RIGHTS OF WAY-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c35432 _d35432