Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Sue Lindsey

Stories

  • INKY BUSINESSSubscription

    10 May, 2007Updated: 6 February, 2009

    LEGAL

  • BALLS IN COURTSubscription

    3 May, 2007Updated: 6 February, 2009

    LEGAL

  • LIGHTING UPSubscription

    19 April, 2007Updated: 6 February, 2009

    LEGAL

  • WATERY ENDSubscription

    22 February, 2007Updated: 6 February, 2009

    LEGAL

  • LITTLE BY LITTLESubscription

    11 January, 2007Updated: 6 February, 2009

    LEGAL

  • LIMITED APPEALSubscription

    2 November, 2006Updated: 6 February, 2009

    LEGAL

  • ROOT CAUSESubscription

    26 October, 2006Updated: 6 February, 2009

    LEGAL

  • LIGHT FANTASTICSubscription

    19 October, 2006Updated: 6 February, 2009

    The vagaries of how buildings are used continue to pose occasional challenges to the venerable topic of rights of light, writes Sue Lindsey. Last year the court heard arguments about whether it was relevant that a modern office block was continuously artificially lit (Midtown v City of London Real Property Company; AJ 17.02.05).

  • FIRST PRINCIPLESSubscription

    12 October, 2006Updated: 6 February, 2009

    LEGAL

  • GOING ON STRIKESubscription

    21 September, 2006Updated: 6 February, 2009

    LEGAL

All by Sue Lindsey

Job of the week

AJ Jobs