000			01270cab a22002415a 4500
001			L144032
008			080612e20080527xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u144032
041	0		_aeng
100	1		_aFoley, Tim
245	0	0	_aClearer view emerges on the rights of light
260			_c2008
490		0	_aSolicitors' Journal _v152(21) 27 May 2008, 8-10(2)
520			_aDiscusses light obstruction issues. Considers two appeal court decisions which have clarified the law and which have re-emphasised that construction can allow obstruction, so far as rights of light are concerned. RHJ Ltd v FT Patten (Holdings) Ltd and another (L143458) was an important case which concerned 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. This decision drew heavily on Mitchell v Cantrill.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aPRESCRIPTION ACT 1832 S3
650	2	4	_aRHJ LTD V FT PATTEN (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER
650	2	4	_aMITCHELL V CANTRILL
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY MANAGEMENT-EASEMENTS-RIGHTS TO LIGHT DETERMINATION-RIGHTS TO LIGHT
700	1		_aPulley, Simon
942			_n0
999			_c80335 _d80335