CGIS City Plaza Shares 1 Ltd & Anor v Britel Fund Trustees Ltd [2012] EWHC 1594 (Ch) (13 June 2012)

CGIS City Plaza Shares 1 Ltd & Anor v Britel Fund Trustees Ltd [2012] EWHC 1594 (Ch) (13 June 2012)

Clause 1(b) of the 1967 Conveyance is not limited to the Corporation's period of ownership; it authorises the Defendant and its successors to build on the Defendant's Property notwithstanding interference with light to City Plaza, and operates as a consent or agreement within section 3 of the Prescription Act 1832. Therefore, no absolute and indefeasible prescriptive right to light has arisen for the benefit of City Plaza's windows.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1594 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: CGIS City Plaza Shares 1 Limited; Claimant: CGIS City Plaza Shares 2 Limited; Defendant: Britel Fund Trustees Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Claim for Declaration and Cancellation of Light Obstruction Notice / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Rights to Light, Prescription Act 1832, Interpretation of Conveyance, Restrictive Covenants, Law of Property Act 1925
Property Law Real Estate Easements Rights to Light Prescription Act 1832 Interpretation of Conveyance Restrictive Covenants Law of Property Act 1925

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CGIS City Plaza Shares 1 Limited

Claimant

CGIS City Plaza Shares 2 Limited

Claimant

Britel Fund Trustees Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Claim for Declaration and Cancellation of Light Obstruction Notice / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether City Plaza is entitled to easements of light under the Prescription Act 1832 or doctrine of lost modern grant
  2. 2 Proper construction of clause 1(b) of the 1967 Conveyance
  3. 3 Effect of alterations to windows on prescriptive rights

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 1(b) of the 1967 Conveyance is not limited to the Corporation's period of ownership; it authorises the Defendant and its successors to build on the Defendant's Property notwithstanding interference with light to City Plaza, and operates as a consent or agreement within section 3 of the Prescription Act 1832. Therefore, no absolute and indefeasible prescriptive right to light has arisen for the benefit of City Plaza's windows.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that no prescriptive easement of light exists for the benefit of City Plaza under the Prescription Act 1832
  • Claimants' request for cancellation of light obstruction notice refused