Exceptions deal with the present time (the here and now). Thus, they are effective only to prevent the creation of easements by express or implied grants. For instance, an exception in respect of ‘all right to the access of light or air from the adjoining property’ will prevent a right of light arising by express or implied grant. But, it will not prevent a right of light arising in the future (eg by prescription through 20 years’ use). For that, you need a reservation (which will deal with the future – as opposed to the present). For instance, a reservation of ‘the full and free right to erect, build, rebuild and/or alter... at any time... any buildings... and any land adjoining’! That will prevent a right of light arising in the future (eg by prescription), even though ‘light’ is not specifically mentioned. In essence, the courts have now made it clear that they do not need to see the magic word ‘light’ for a right of light to be excluded. Instead, they take a common sense approach by looking to interpret the intention behind a reservation and/or exception. This does not, of course, alter the fact that the prudent will make sure that such rights are specifically referred to, so as to remove any argument on that point. RHJ v FT Patten [2007] EWHC 1655 (Ch).

 © Practical Lawyer