000			01704cab a2200217 4500
001			L129423
008			050419n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u129423
041			_aeng
100			_aMurdoch, Sandi
245			_aArtificial distinction
260			_c2005
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0514) 9 April 2005, 127(1)
520			_aRights to light can arise after only 20 years' use and once in place can affect the development potential of land. They are not easily overridden and injunctions or substantial damages are the expected remedies against their infringement. Discusses "Midtown Ltd v City of London Real Property Co Ltd" ([2005] EWHC 33 (Ch), Abs68690) where the defendant (C) alleged that the claimant freeholder (M) did not have a right to light relating to the part of a site adjacent to M's office building on which C intended to build, using a 1930 conveyance and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s237 as arguments. C also contended that the question of infringement should include artificial as well as natural light. Concludes that s237 of the Act cannot always override rights affecting a development and that the regular use of artificial light cannot prevent a right to light from being infringed although it may affect the remedy awarded. M had to settle for damages.
590			_aIKA290405
650			_aMIDTOWN LTD V CITY OF LONDON REAL PROPERTY CO LTD
650			_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S237
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY MANAGEMENT-EASEMENTS-RIGHTS TO LIGHT DETERMINATION-RIGHTS TO LIGHT
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2005/33.html _zView the decision free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c75102 _d75102