header-logo header-logo

The law of light

Andrew Francis examines why the rights of light law needs changing and what form such reform should take

What do the following events have in common? The coronation of Richard I in 1189. The second and third years of the reign of William IV in 1832. The signing of the Entente Cordiale in 1904. The opening of the first section of the M1 motorway in 1959. All these dates have a bearing on rights of light. It is extraordinary to reflect that they span over 750 years. The law of light cannot be described as having modern foundations.

Why is Reform Needed?

There are two reasons why reform is overdue. First, the way in which rights of light can arise is complex and fragmented. Secondly, the state of the law can be a disincentive to development, particularly in inner city regeneration projects.

Acquisition of the right

Most features are archaic. Prescription at common law must be founded upon enjoyment since 1189. That is not a promising start.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll