UK: Shining A Light On Interpretation

Last Updated: 11 December 2012
Article by Emma Humphreys

Rights of light are often an issue for property owners keen to preserve the value of their assets by protecting the right to develop. In the recent case of CGIS City Plaza Shares 1 Limited & Anr v Britel Fund Trustees Limited [2012] EWHC 1594 (Ch),the court was asked to examine the extent to which successors to the original owner of a property were permitted to interfere with light received by the neighbouring property and the operation of rights to light arising a result of coincidence between old and new apertures.

Background facts

The claimants in this case owned a nine storey property, City Plaza on Cannon Street in Birmingham. The property was built between 1987 and 1988 and the original windows were in place by February 1988. One side of City Plaza – containing 69 apertures - faced the defendant's properties at Temple Row on Cannon Street.

In May 2008, the defendant's predecessors-in-title had registered a temporary light obstruction notice against City Plaza under section 2(3)(b) of the Rights of Light Act 1959. A definitive certificate was registered in September 2008. The claimants sought an order to cancel the certificate and a declaration that City Plaza enjoyed a right to light pursuant to the Prescription Act 1832.

The issues

The key issue in the case centred around the language used in a conveyance dated 6 June 1967 made between the Corporation of Birmingham on the one hand and the Governor and Company of the Bank of England on the other. Put shortly, the question was whether the 1967 conveyance gave the owner of the defendant's property the right to build on its land and interfere with the light or air to City Plaza only whilst City Plaza was owned by the Corporation, or whether this protection continued irrespective of the identity of the owner of City Plaza. In the event that the right only endured whilst City Plaza was owned by the Corporation, the defendant accepted that 62 of the 69 apertures on the relevant façade (plus some other minor apertures) would have acquired rights to light by prescription due to long use.

Another important issue in the case related to the remaining windows within the façade of City Plaza facing the defendant's property. Five of these windows had been altered in around 2006 and the defendant argued that these alterations meant that the windows did not enjoy any right to light. The parties were agreed that a finding on the first issue (i.e. relating to the construction of the 1967 conveyance) in the defendant's favour meant that the second issue would become irrelevant, but the judge was asked by both parties to express a view on the issue in any event.

History of ownership

At the time of the 1967 conveyance, part of the defendant's site was already owned by the Bank. The remainder of the defendant's property affected by this dispute was acquired through a purchase from the Corporation as documented by the 1967 conveyance. At that time, the Corporation retained its freehold interest in the land on which part of City Plaza now stands.

Clause 1 of the 1967 conveyance granted rights to the Bank, including the right for the Bank and its successors in title to build to any height on its land "notwithstanding that any such building may interfere with light or air now or any time hereinafter enjoyed by the buildings for the time being erected on any adjoining adjacent or neighbouring land owned by or vested in the Corporation."

There was then a proviso to clause 1, which reserved certain rights to the Corporation. These included certain rights of support and the right to build without regard to any interference with light or air in respect of the buildings on the land conveyed. The clause added that any light or air enjoyed by buildings on the conveyed land would be "deemed to be enjoyed by the leave or licence of the Corporation or their Successors in Title as the case may be".

In order to assess the buildings potentially affected by the 1967 conveyance, the court heard historical evidence as to the ownership of land by the Corporation as at 6 June 1967. This satisfied the court that the Corporation had owned land at that time – in addition to the City Plaza site – which could properly be described as "adjoining adjacent or neighbouring land" as referred to in the 1967 conveyance. The deputy judge opined that the reference to "neighbouring" was capable of extending to land on the other side of the street. As a whole, he felt that the phrase was intended to mean any other land sufficiently proximate to the defendant's property which was capable of having its enjoyment of light interfered with by a building erected on the defendant's land.

It was noted that the relevant part of the land which now forms part of City Plaza had subsequently been sold by the Corporation, although there was no detailed evidence abut this. However, the freehold interest had been transferred to a predecessor-in-title of the claimant by the time when construction started on City Plaza.

Application of prescription under the 1832 Act

The entitlement to acquire a right to light by prescription is set out in section 3 of the 1832 Act, which provides as follows:

"When the access and use of light to and for any dwelling house, workshop, or other building shall have been actually enjoyed therewith for the full period of twenty years without interruption, the right thereto shall be deemed absolute and indefeasible, any local usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding, unless it shall appear that the same was enjoyed by some consent or agreement expressly made or given for that purpose by deed of writing."

The effect of section 3 is that a right to light is acquired for the benefit of apertures in a building (in this case, City Plaza) where the light is enjoyed continuously and without interruption for a period of at least 20 years. However, any claim to a right to light acquired in these circumstances will be defeated where it is shown that the light has been enjoyed as a result of an express consent or agreement in writing.

Absence of "consent or agreement"

In this case, it was clear that the apertures on the relevant façade of City Plaza had enjoyed light for a sufficiently long period prior to the registration of the light obstruction notice so as to give rise to a prescriptive right to light. However, the court needed to examine the terms of clause 1 of the 1967 conveyance in order to establish whether they constituted a "consent or agreement" by which light was enjoyed by City Plaza. Crucially, it also needed to assess whether this consent/agreement still applied once City Plaza was no longer owned by the Corporation.

The court examined how previous cases had approached the construction of the proviso to section 3, with particular reference to the decision of the Court of Appeal in RHJ Ltd v FT Patten (Holdings) Ltd & Anr [2008] EWCA Civ 151. It also noted the following helpful passage from the judgment of Lightman J in Marlborough (West End) Ltd v Wills Head & Eve(Unreported 20 December 1996):

"...provisions designed to authorise the servient owner at a future date to carry out works or build as he pleases unrestricted by any easement of light in favour of the dominant land and notwithstanding any resultant injury to the light enjoyed...may be construed as consents or agreements permitting the enjoyment of light during the interim period and accordingly (as provided in section 3) preclude any easement arising by prescription under the Act."

The examination of case-law confirmed that clause 1 of the 1967 conveyance could be construed as a consent permitting the enjoyment of light so as to preclude any right to light arising by prescription for the benefit of City Plaza – provided that the clause authorised the owner of the defendant's property to build as it pleased at a future date, unrestricted by any easement of light in favour of City Plaza and notwithstanding any resulting injury to the light enjoyed.

The claimants contended that clause 1 should not be construed in this way because the authority to build despite any interference with light was only granted for so long as City Plaza was owned by the Corporation. In short, they considered that the transfer of the City Plaza site away from the ownership of the Corporation meant that any interference with light was no longer permitted by the 1967 conveyance from that point onwards.

Interpretation of the 1967 conveyance

The court agreed with the defendant that clause 1 of the conveyance did not just grant rights to the Bank; it also contained a promise by the Corporation that it would take no steps to assert a prescriptive right to light (in favour of its property including City Plaza) against the land now constituting the defendant's property. The court agreed that the substance of this obligation was essentially a restrictive – rather than a positive – covenant and held that this was a covenant relating to the land of the Corporation within the meaning of section 79(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. However, whilst the defendant argued that this led to a presumption that the covenant should therefore extend to the Corporation's successors-in-title, the deputy judge highlighted the fact that this operation of section 79(1) only applies "unless a contrary intention is expressed" and that such a contrary intention may be found even without any explicit expression of such. The deputy judge therefore concluded that section 79(1) added little of substance to the main issue of whether clause 1 was intended to be personal to the Corporation.

The claimants argued that any intention for the proviso to section 3 to apply so as to prevent a prescriptive right to light from being acquired would have been expressly stated within the relevant agreement. The deputy judge noted the difference in wording between the different parts of clause 1 of the 1967 conveyance – in particular the reference within the reservation of rights to the Corporation to light being enjoyed by the conveyed land with the "leave or licence of the Corporation". However, he did not consider this to have the significance attributed to it by the claimants and pointed out that the wording within clause 1 which he was examining was also concerned with making provision for at least some application of the proviso to section 3 – even if the consent or agreement was limited to the duration of the Corporation's ownership. It was noted that there was no other obvious explanation as to why an authority to build in the future despite interference with light was introduced into the clause.

It was clear to the court that the authority to build granted to the Bank and its successors in title by clause 1 was intended to relate to the enjoyment of light by the apertures on identified buildings. The options for identifying these buildings could either be based on: (i) whether the building is or is not currently in the Corporation's ownership; or (ii) whether the adjoining, adjacent or neighbouring land on which the relevant building is erected was owned by or vested in the Corporation at the time of the 1967 conveyance. The deputy judge considered it "more probable" that clause 1 of the conveyance intended to identify the buildings concerned by reference to their physical status or location rather than by reference to their ownership from time to time.

The deputy judge also gave some significance to the location of the phrase "for the time being" within clause 1. He felt that it was used to qualify the word "buildings", rather than the ownership of the land. Otherwise, the phrase should have been moved so as to be closer to the reference to the ownership of the Corporation, i.e. "notwithstanding that any such building may interfere with light or air now or at any time hereinafter enjoyed by the buildings for the time being erected on any adjoining adjacent or neighbouring land owned by or vested in the Corporation." The deputy judge believed that this view was supported by the fact that the parties at the time had probably considered it appropriate for a purchaser in the Bank's position to acquire the freedom to build to the maximum extent available, i.e. as against all of the Corporation's property in the vicinity.

Business common sense?

Whilst the deputy judge accepted the claimant's submission that commercial construction should not override the clear language of a document, he noted that – where words used are capable of having more than one meaning – the court should follow the guidance given in Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50. This involves consideration of all of the relevant background circumstances in order to ascertain the parties' meaning, but permits the court to "prefer the construction which is consistent with business common sense" where there is more than one option for interpretation.

In considering whether his findings met the test of business common sense, the deputy judge considered the effects of the claimants' proposed interpretation of clause 1. He noted that the claimants' construction offered the attraction of certainty, i.e. by raising only the need to check the current ownership of City Plaza rather than the need to undertake a historic investigation of title. However, the court was not persuaded by this as it would mean that land subsequently coming into the Corporation's ownership would be caught by clause 1. The deputy judge felt that any such interpretation would be "surprising" and would therefore require a clearly expressed intention.

It was also noted that the claimants' interpretation meant that the prescription period would start to run from an uncertain point in the future when the ownership of City Plaza was transferred away from the Corporation. The deputy judge could see no reason for the original parties to contract for such uncertainty here and said that he would have expected clearer language to have been used to convey any such intention.

In conclusion, the judge felt that the claimants' approach relied too much on comparing wording within the 1967 conveyance and gave insufficient regard to the context in which the wording was used. He therefore held that the right to build on the defendant's property despite any interference with light was not limited to a right against the Corporation alone. This meant that City Plaza's enjoyment of light over the defendant's property continued as a result of the "consent or agreement" granted by the 1967 conveyance, even though City Plaza was no longer owned by the Corporation. Accordingly, the proviso to section 3 was engaged so as to defeat the claimants' claim to a right of light acquired by prescription.

Coincidence of the altered windows

In case his findings regarding the interpretation of the 1967 conveyance were incorrect, the deputy judge also delivered his views regarding the five windows within the façade of City Plaza facing the defendant's property which had been altered in around 2006 (before the original windows in their position could have acquired any right to light by prescription).

The parties' experts appeared to agree that the light received and enjoyed through each of the new windows included some of the same light which was received and enjoyed through the old windows. However, the defendant submitted that the windows could not have acquired rights to light on the basis that the circumstances surrounding the alterations indicated an intention to abandon the ancient light. The claimants argued that no question of abandonment should arise if they were able to satisfy section 3 by proving the use of the light for the duration of the prescription period.

On reviewing the case law, the deputy judge noted that the test was "identity of light, and not identity of aperture". He therefore rejected the defendant's suggestion that the 20 year prescription period should have started again when the new windows were installed. He also disagreed that there should be any distinction between alterations made before the expiry of the 20 year period and alterations made after that time. Accordingly, he confirmed that a right to light would have been acquired by prescription where there is coincidence between the light enjoyed through the old and the new windows. Although the deputy judge noted that the extent of this right was subject to the extent of the coincidence within a particular new aperture, he considered that the claimants had proved sufficient coincidence here between the old and new windows.

Lessons for the future?

It is tempting to regard this case as one which deals with the arcane law of light only. But there are lessons to be drawn from it which are highly relevant to all developers and property owners, as well their advisers. Key lessons include:

  • Always consider title entries and the documents behind them with great care.
  • In rights of light matters, technical and complex law may be crucial to the right to develop, or to stop it. So take specialist advice at the first stage of any consideration of the rights and obligations between neighbouring property owners.
  • Recent cases such as Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 WLR 2900show the importance of the application of a commonsense and business-orientated approach when construing documents. But never ignore the words and their context in the search of what the reasonable person with all the relevant background knowledge would have understood the language used to mean.
  • When looking at "standard" or "commonplace" terms in documents, bear in mind what was said by Sir Stephen Sedley in Rees v Peters [2011] 2 P&CR 18:-

    "The present case offers a good illustration of why, despite the usefulness of standard phraseology in conveyancing, the instrument which contains it must still be read and understood as a unique text directed to a specific transaction with its own parties and purposes."
  • Finally, as to the coincidence issue, always ensure that records of buildings are kept by management surveyors or agents, especially prior to the alteration or demolition of such buildings. This case is believed to be the first reported one on coincidence for over 80 years since News of the World Ltd v Allen Fairhead & Sons Ltd. [1931] 2 Ch 402.What both cases show is the need for detailed evidence when coincidence is being asserted by the dominant owner.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Emma Humphreys
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.