The claimants were underlessees of an office building. The offices had enjoyed a right of light for over a hundred years, and the freehold had acquired an easement of light by lost modern grant. The roadway having been closed, the defendant head landlords intended to build in a way which would interfere with the right. The defendants said that the rights were excluded by the express terms of the lease. The claimants said the building would be a breach of their right to quiet enjoyment of the appurtenances to the property.
Held: In granting a lease, a landlord could reserve the right to develop his own land as he wished, and thus to impinge on the tenant’s right of quiet enjoyment, but he could not require such a reservation in favour of land he did not own. In this case, the demised premises had acquired an easement of light under the doctrine of lost modern grant, and the lease purported to permit any development of adjoining land. The landlord and adjoining landowner proposed development, which would interfere with the right, and the tenant sought an order restraining them. The order was given, on summary judgment, as against the land-owner who was not his landlord.
Judges:
Rich QC
Citations:
Times 20-Aug-2001, Gazette 13-Sep-2001, [2001] EWHC Ch 483
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Overcom Properties v Stockleigh Hall Residents Management Ltd ChD 1988
The lease granted the defendants rights of access over the grounds and forecourts of a block of flats, but reserving to the lessor the right to develop ‘notwithstanding that the access of light or air or any other easement appertaining to the flat . .
Cited – William Hill (Southern) Limited v Cabras CA 1986
The tenant had affixed a sign to the premises with the landlord’s consent. The new landlord said that any licence was revocable. The judge had held that the lease had specifically granted a right to exhibit the signs.
Held: The landlord’s . .
Cited – Foster v Lyons and Co 1927
The lease contained a reservation which would allow the freeholder to build upon his neighbouring land whether or not it obstructed any rights of light in the demised premises.
Held: The reservation was effective to prevent a right of being . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.160182