000			01831cab a22002175a 4500
001			L139811
008			070810e20070713xxk f w 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u139811
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aRHJ Ltd V FT Patten (Holdings) and another _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2007
520			_a[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.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aRHJ LTD V FT PATTEN (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER
650	2	4	_aRHJ LTD V FT PATTEN (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER
650	2	4	_aPRESCRIPTION ACT 1832 S3
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY MANAGEMENT-EASEMENTS-RIGHTS TO LIGHT DETERMINATION-RIGHTS TO LIGHT
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1655.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c79094 _d79094