Keywords: Rights to light, easements, oversailing agreement.
An oversailing agreement under which the respondent agreed that a development project, the Cube in Birmingham, might have adverse effects on its right to light was not a consent or agreement of the kind referred to in s3 Prescription Act 1832 meaning that it had lost its right to light. The light obstruction notice registered by the appellant was cancelled.
John de Waal acted for the Claimant (the Respondent in the Court of Appeal).
This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.
Please note that we do not give legal advice on individual cases which may relate to this content other than by way of formal instruction of a member of Hardwicke. However if you have any other queries about this content please contact: