You are reading a single comment by @ReekBlefs and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • Yep. That wording would prevent you as lessee from acquiring a prescriptive right to light under section 3 of the Prescription Act 1832. It would also mean that the freeholder's right to damages in lieu of an injunction would be pretty limited, as the value of the reversion is unlikely to be affected much by any decrease in natural light, but that's a matter from them to argue out with the owners of the building plot and wouldn't really concern you.

  • Very clear, thanks man. The fact that our Lease says that light isn't anything to do with Leaseholders means that the discussion effectively turns into an argument between two freeholders about the respective values of their individual investments. Appreciated.

About

Avatar for ReekBlefs @ReekBlefs started