000			01458cab a2200205 4500
001			L136179
008			070116n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u136179
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aTamares (Vincent Square) Ltd v. Fairpoint Properties (Vincent Square) Ltd
260			_c2006
490		0	_aEstates Gazette _v[2006] 41 EG 226
520			_aChD, 4 September 2006. The claimant owned an office building and contended that it was affected by the development of an adjoining property in terms of access to light. Two entrance lobby windows which had been boarded up for 20 years were included as well as two basement windows which illuminated a stairwell. "Held": it was decided that the interference with light to the two basement windows was an actionable nuisance but that the boarding up of the two entrance lobby windows meant that no right to light had been acquired to them. Damages were awarded but not the grant of a mandatory injunction. Applying the rule in "Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co Ltd" (No 1) [1895] 1 Ch 287, the injury was small and could be estimated in, and compensated by, a monetary payment.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aSHELFER V CITY OF LONDON ELECTRIC LIGHTING CO LTD 1895
650	2	4	_aTAMARES (VINCENT SQUARE) LTD V FAIRPOINT PROPERTIES (VINCENT SQUARE) LTD
651		4	_aEngland _y886-
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY MANAGEMENT-EASEMENTS-RIGHTS TO LIGHT DETERMINATION
942			_n0
999			_c78171 _d78171