R (on the application of Trail Riders Fellowship and another (Respondents) v Dorset County Council (Appellant) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 18th March 2015
Category: rights of way
Council loses Supreme Court appeal in rights of way battle with trail riders – Local Government Lawyer
‘The Supreme Court has rejected – by a 3-2 majority – a county council’s appeal over whether an application by motorcyclists to upgrade rights of way complied with relevant statutory requirements.’
Local Government Lawyer, 18th March 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Warring couples spend half a million pounds in legal fight over ‘muddy ditch’ – Daily Telegraph
‘Married couples spend £500,000 on venomous neighbours’ dispute about “thin strip” of drainage ditch alongside path dividing Cheshire country homes.’
Daily Telegraph, 17th November 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Regina (Trail Riders Fellowship and another) v Dorset County Council – WLR Daily
“A map produced to a scale of 1:25,000, even if digitally derived from an original map of a different scale, satisfied the requirements for a map accompanying an application to modify a right of way that were set out in paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 14 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.”
WLR Daily, 20th May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Moore v British Waterways Board – WLR Daily
Moore v British Waterways Board [2013] EWCA Civ 73; [2013] WLR (D) 59
“At common law a riparian owner who did not own the river bed had no right to moor vessels there permanently. However, absence of a right to moor did not necessarily mean that a vessel was moored ‘without lawful authority’ within section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983, which empowered the British Waterways Board to remove a vessel.”
WLR Daily, 14th Febraury 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Property development in a cold climate – Hardwicke Chambers
“In these somewhat tricky financial times, it is unsurprising that the Government is keen to persuade property developers to do their bit to kick-start the ailing economy by dusting off chunks of their carefully land-banked acreage and getting on with long-shelved construction projects. However, many things have changed in this post-banking-apocalypse world, and it is unlikely that developers will be in a position simply to take up projects exactly where they left off a few years ago. In addition to the obvious funding difficulties they now face, developers large and small will need to be alert to changes in planning policy and local needs since they put their projects on hold. These will be particularly relevant where the developer requires an extension of time on the original planning permission or where he wishes to escape from or mitigate the burden of an obligation previously accepted in order to obtain that permission or to deal with reserved matters.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 10th December 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Estoppel and unconscionability – NearlyLegal
“In Joyce v Epsom & Ewell BC [2012] EWCA Civ 1398, the Court of Appeal were faced with a not dissimilar case to the classic Crabb v Arun DC [1976] 1 Ch 179, at least in so far as it was a claim to an easement against a local authority by way of proprietary estoppel.”
NearlyLegal, 9th November 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Fortune and others v Wiltshire Council and another – WLR Daily
Fortune and others v Wiltshire Council and another [2012] EWCA Civ 334; [2012] WLR (D) 90
“Section 67(2)(b) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which provided that section 67(1), as to the ending of certain existing unrecorded public rights of way, did not apply where such a right of way was shown in a list of highways maintainable at public expense, as required to be kept by councils under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980, did not require that list to be fully complaint with section 36(6), rather the requirement was that such a list should exist.”
WLR Daily, 20th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Garden row between millionaire neighbours reaches Appeal Court – Daily Telegraph
“A long and bitter feud between a pair of millionaire Surrey neighbours has taken an expensive turn after their argument over a ‘wiggly path leading to nowhere’ reached the Appeal Court.”
Daily Telegraph, 16th January 2012
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Uninterrupted Morris Dancing rights beaten by an A1P1 claim? – UK Human Rights Blog
“Retrospective legislation often gives rise to claims under Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention – you may have some legal advantage (whether it be property or a legal claim) which you then find yourselves losing as a result of the change of law. I have posted on some of these, the ban of the pub fag machine, or the change in the law that meant insurers had to pay compensation for pleural plaques caused by asbestos. These A1P1 cases are not easy to win, not least because the courts are wary in thwarting legislative changes via one of the less fundamental and most qualified rights in the Convention locker.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th December 2011
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Milebush Properties Ltd v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council and another – WLR Daily
“Although the court had a wide discretion to grant declaratory relief in diverse circumstances in both public and private law proceedings, where a party who was not a party to the contract brought private proceedings seeking declaratory relief to enforce a public authority’s planning obligation the court would not lend its assistance.”
WLR Daily, 17th March 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Maroudas v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – WLR Daily
“An application under s 53(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to upgrade a byway from a road used as a public path to a byway open to all traffic did not need to be made in a single document. The lack of a date and signature on the application might be cured by a letter sent shortly after the submission of the form but where no date or signature was supplied for ten weeks the statutory requirements in para 1 of Sch 14 to the 1981 Act had not been complied with. In the instant case the applicant’s failure to make clear the extent of the route which he wanted the local authority to upgrade, together with his failure to supply a map, were also departures from the strict requirements set out in Wildlife and Countryside (Definitive Maps and Statements) Regulations 1993. Together the departures from the strict requirements required that the application be rejected.”
WLR Daily, 19th March 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Ramblers score ‘landmark’ victory over multi-millionaire landowner’s gates – Daily Telegraph
“Ramblers scored a landmark victory over a multi-millionaire landowner yesterday when a top judge told him he must tear down the “impressive” iron gateway to his Somerset estate.”
Daily Telegraph, 18th February 2010
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Bee and another v Thompson – WLR Daily
Bee and another v Thompson [2009] EWCA Civ 1212; [2009] WLR (D) 345
“Where a bequest of land in adjacent parcels to different beneficiaries expressly provided that the owner of one parcel should enjoy a right of way over a track running over the other, but the vesting consents which conveyed the land to the beneficiaries did not grant such an easement, the will and the assents were to be construed together as a single transaction so as to give full effect to the testatrix’s intention. However such a right of way ‘at all times and for all purposes connected with’ the dominant tenement did not entitle the owner of that land to increase the user of the right of way from that associated with the agricultural purposes for which it had been used when the right of way had been granted to that associated with three houses.”
WLR Daily, 30th November 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Neighbours’ High Court feud over curfews, trellises and hosepipes – Daily Telegraph
“A feud between neighbours turned so bitter that one couple tried to impose a curfew preventing the other from leaving their home at night, the High Court has heard.”
Daily Telegraph, 12th March 2009
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Landowner ordered to remove iron gates after £300,000 legal battle – Daily Telegraph
“A landowner has been ordered by a judge to remove wrought iron gates blocking a public footpath after a five-year, £300,000 legal battle.”
Daily Telegraph, 11th March 2009
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Concerns about coastal path as Marine Bill proposed – Daily Telegraph
“Farmers and landowners have pledged to fight for compensation if a new coastal path crosses their land.”
Daily Telegraph, 2nd December 2008
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Landowners ‘deserve compensation over right-to-roam rules’ – Daily Telegraph
“Owners affected by the route of the coastal path around England should be paid if they can prove they will suffer financial loss as a result, says a new report.”
Daily Telegraph, 22nd July 2008
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Regina (Warden and Fellows of Winchester College and Another) v Hampshire County Council – Times Law Reports
Regina (Warden and Fellows of Winchester College and Another) v Hampshire County Council
Court of Appeal
“Statutory requirements governing the making of an application to change the status of a right of way were to be adhered to strictly.”
The Times, 8th May 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
R (Warden and Fellows of Winchester College and another) v Hampshire County Council – WLR Daily
“The formal requirements governing the making of an application to modify a definitive map and statement under s 53(5) of, and para 3 of Sch 14 to, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which were contained in para 1 of Sch 14, had to be adhered to strictly. Where such an application was found to be invalid, certain rights ostensibly extinguished under s 67(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 were not apt to be saved by virtue of s 67(3) of the 2006 Act since the latter provision was predicated upon a valid application.”
WLR Daily, 30th April 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
