000			01854cab a22002055a 4500
001			L143458
008			080513e20080312xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u143458
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aRHJ Ltd v FT Patten (Holdings) Ltd and another _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2008
520			_a[2008] EWCA Civ 151, 12 March 2008. Considered whether a clause in a lease excluding the acquiring of easements under the Prescription Act 1832 had to refer specifically to the right to light in order for that right to be deemed excluded. The appellant lessee (R) appealed against a preliminary finding (L139811) that the right to light did not have to be specifically mentioned in his lease among easements which were barred to him. The lease allowed the respondent landlord (F) to construct adjacent to the property and the judge ruled on this preliminary issue that it had not been intended to grant the indefeasible right of light to R. R appealed, arguing that to bar that right for the purpose of section 3 of the Act, the clause had to make it clear that the right to light specifically was consensual. "Held": The phrase "expressly made or given for that purpose" in section 3 of the Act was satisfied by a condition in the lease which had the effect of rendering all easements conditional or permissive. There was no requirement to expressly refer to the right of light. The judge had been correct in his findings. Appeal dismissed.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aPRESCRIPTION ACT 1832 S3
650	2	4	_aRHJ LTD V FT PATTEN (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER
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/EWCA/Civ/2008/151.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c80188 _d80188