R. v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), (2007) 372 N.R. 321 (HL)

• Case Date: June 20, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2007), 372 N.R. 321 (HL)

R. v. U.K. (2007), 372 N.R. 321 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] N.R. TBEd. NO.009

R (on the application of Godmanchester Town Council) (appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (respondent) and one other action

R (on the application of Drain) (appellant) v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (respondent) and one other action ([2007] UKHL 28)

Indexed As: R. v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

June 20, 2007.

Summary:

Section 31(1) of the Highways Act (U.K.), 1980, provided that "where a way over any land … has been actually enjoyed by the public as of right and without interruption for a full period of 20 years, the way is to be deemed to have been dedicated as a highway unless there is sufficient evidence that there was no intention during that period to dedicate it". The main issue on this appeal was the nature of the evidence needed to establish that there was no intention to dedicate.

The House of Lords determined the issue accordingly.

Highways - Topic 14

General and definitions - Definitions - Public highway - Section 31(1) of the Highways Act (U.K.), 1980, provided that "where a way over any land … has been actually enjoyed by the public as of right and without interruption for a full period of 20 years, the way is to be deemed to have been dedicated as a highway unless there is sufficient evidence that there was no intention during that period to dedicate it" - The main issue on this appeal was the nature of the evidence needed to establish that there was no intention to dedicate - The House of Lords, per Lord Hoffman, stated that "upon the true construction of section 31(1), 'intention' means what the relevant audience, namely the users of the way, would reasonably have understood the landowner's intention to be. The test is ... objective: not what the owner subjectively intended nor what particular users of the way subjectively assumed, but whether a reasonable user would have understood that the owner was intending ..." - The other Lords agreed with Lord Hoffman's statement of the law - See paragraph 32.

Highways - Topic 164

Establishment of highways and public rights of way - Dedication - What constitutes - [See Highways - Topic 14 ].

Highways - Topic 175

Establishment of highways and public rights of way - Dedication - Implied dedication - [See Highways - Topic 14 ].

Highways - Topic 326

Establishment of highways and public rights of way - Establishment by statute - Deemed public highway - [See Highways - Topic 14 ].

Words and Phrases

Intention - The House of Lords discussed the meaning of the word "intention" as used in s. 31(1) of the Highways Act (U.K.), 1980 - See paragraphs 1 to 92.

Cases Noticed:

Powell v. McFarlane (1977), 38 P. & C.R. 452 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 3].

JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd. v. Graham, [2003] 1 A.C. 419 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Oxfordshire County Council; Ex parte Sunningwell Parish Council, [2000] 1 A.C. 335 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 4, 80].

Poole v. Huskinson (1843), 11 M. & W. 827, refd to. [para. 5].

Jones v. Bates, [1938] 2 All E.R. 237, refd to. [paras. 6, 58, 60].

Jaques v. Secretary of State for the Environment, [1995] JPL 1031, refd to. [para. 6].

Folkestone Corp. v. Brockman, [1914] A.C. 338, refd to. [paras. 7, 64].

Bryant v. Foot (1867), L.R. 2 Q.B. 161, refd to. [para. 8].

Mann v. Brodie (1885), 10 App. Cas. 378, refd to. [paras. 8, 51, 64].

British Museum v. Finnis (1833), 5 Car. & P. 460, refd to. [para. 13].

Barraclough v. Johnson (1838), 8 Ad. & E. 99, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Broke (1859), 1 F. & F. 514, refd to. [para. 15].

Fairey v. Southampton County Council, [1956] 2 Q.B. 439 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 17, 56, 69, 83].

R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment; Ex parte Blake, [1984] JPL 101, refd to. [para. 22].

O'Keefe v. Secretary of State for the Environment, [1996] JPL 42, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment; Ex parte Cowell, [1993] JPL 851, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment; Ex parte Billson, [1999] Q.B. 374, refd to. [paras. 27, 56].

R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Ex parte Dorset County Council, [2000] JPL 396, refd to. [paras. 28, 56].

Secretary of State for the Environment v. Beresford, [2006] Q.B. 727 (C.A), refd to. [paras. 30, 82].

Merstham Manor Ltd. v. Coulsdon and Purley UDC, [1937] 2 K.B. 77, refd to. [para. 89].

Lewis v. Thomas, [1950] K.B. 438 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

Statutes Noticed:

Highways Act, 1980 (U.K.), sect. 31(1) [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Chubb, Lawrence, The Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths, Preservation Society (1932), 2 J. of Commons 244, p. 247 [para. 51].

Counsel:

George Laurence, Q.C., and Miss Ross Crail (instructed by J.J. Pearlman with Zermansky & Partners, Leeds), for the appellants;

Timothy Mould, Q.C., and David Blundell (instructed by Treasury Solicitor), for the respondents;

Edwin Simpson (instructed by Blandy & Blandy, Reading), for the intervenors.

Agents:

[None disclosed.]

This appeal was heard by Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. The decision of the House was delivered on June 20, 2007, when the following opinions were filed:

Lord Hoffmann - see paragraphs 1 to 50;

Lord Hope of Craighead - see paragraphs 51 to 59;

Lord Scott of Foscote - see paragraphs 60 to 71;

Baroness Hale of Richmond - see paragraphs 72 to 76;

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury - see paragraphs 77 to 92.