Secretary of State for the Environment v Beresford Trustees: CA 31 Jul 1996

Hobhouse LJ, adopted at least part of Denning LJ’s approach in Fairey, holding that the absence of intention to dedicate had to be ‘objectively established by overt acts of the landowner’, and that ‘This is not a subjective test. The absence of intention must be objectively established by overt acts of the landowner.’ It was for the objectors to persuade the Inspector that the owners of the land had during the material period sufficiently demonstrated an intention not to dedicate the footpath.’

Judges:

Hobhouse LJ, Staughton LJ and Millett LJ

Citations:

Unreported, 31 July 1996

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 31(1) 31(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedFairey v Southampton City Council CA 1956
The landowner denied that a public right of way had been created over his land. Under the 1932 Act, 20 years user expiring at any time, even before the Act came into force, was capable of giving rise to a deemed dedication of a public highway under . .

Cited by:

CitedGodmanchester Town Council, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs CA 19-Dec-2005
The court considered whether a pathway had become a public highway.
Held: ‘The main question for the Court is whether sufficiency of evidence of an intention not to dedicate necessary to satisfy the proviso requires, as a matter of law, that . .
CitedGodmanchester Town Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs HL 20-Jun-2007
The house was asked about whether continuous use of an apparent right of way by the public would create a public right of way after 20 years, and also whether a non overt act by a landowner was sufficient to prove his intention not to dedicate the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.236556