The claimant had agreed with a developer in 1999 to allow a development which would have a minor affect on his light. The developer later extended the development, to increase the interference with the right to light, relying on the earlier agreement as an abandonment of the right. The claimant sought to register a light obstruction notice.
Held: The appeal failed. The claimant did not abandon his rights to light by entering into the 1999 agreement. Nor did the claimant lose those rights to light by operation of the proviso to s.3 of the 1832 Act. The agreement had acknowledged the rights enjoyed by the claimant’s land, and was not an abandonment of the rights. The arrangements in the 1959 Act were intended to allow a development to be challenged in a manner which would avoid the need to chalenge a completed building with an order for its demolition. The later development in this case went beyond what was envisaged in the earlier agreement, but the buildings had been erected, and the claimant would not be allowed to register its light obstruction.
Tuckey LJ, Carnwath LJ, Jackson LJ
 EWCA Civ 21,  2 P and CR 13,  3 WLR 990,  1 Ch 11
Prescription Act 1832 3, Rights of Light Act 1959 2
England and Wales
Cited – RHJ Ltd v FT Patten (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 12-Mar-2008
A right to light is an unusual form of easement in the sense that it exists only with regard to the access to light to defined apertures in a building (as opposed to the dominant land generally) and its acquisition depends on actual enjoyment, not . .
Cited – Marlborough (West End) Ltd v Wilks Head and Eve ChD 20-Dec-1996
A dispute between neighbours was settled by a deed with the following clause: ‘IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND DECLARED that notwithstanding that the Building Owners have placed windows in that part of their new buildings which overlook the premises . .
Cited – Mitchell v Cantrill CA 1887
In 1864 Sir Humphrey de Trafford granted a 999 year lease of a dwelling house ‘with all rights and appurtenances, legal, used, or reputed, to the said plot of land, except rights, if any, restricting the free use of any adjoining land or the . .
Cited – Willoughby v Eckstein ChD 1936
The parties were tenants of the same landlord, the Grosvenor Estate in adjoining premises at Balfour Mews in Westminster. The plaintiff claimed for an infringement of his right of light from ancient windows by his neighbour, and also that the height . .
Cited – Regina v Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd, ex Parte Bowden and Another HL 18-Jul-1995
A regulated firm, Fisher Prew-Smith, ran a scheme whereby elderly homeowners were persuaded to invest money in equity-linked funds by mortgaging their homes on terms that the interest would roll up unless and until the total mortgage debt reached a . .
Cited – KPMG Llp v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd CA 27-Apr-2007
The parties disputed the interpretation of a break clause in their lease. Carnwath LJ said that courts should not readily accept that parties have made mistakes in formal documents: ‘correction of mistakes by construction’ is not a separate branch . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 February 2021; Ref: scu.280241