The owner of Stonehenge had enclosed the monument by fencing for its protection. The Attorney-General wished to remove the fencing in order to keep the place open so that the public could visit it.
Held: The court rejected a suggestion that there existed public rights of access to the ancient site of Stonehenge, despite the historic user. There could be no public right of way to the monument acquired by mere user or by the fact that the public had been in the habit of visiting it: ‘Now the cases establish that a public path is prima facie a road that leads from one public place to another public place-or as Holmes LJ suggests in the Giant’s Causeway case there cannot prima facie be a right for the public to go to a place where the public have no right to be. But the existence of a terminus ad quem is not essential to the legal existence of a public road. -But in no case has mere user by the public without more been held sufficient’.
The public had no jus spatiandi or manendi–the right to stay or remain–within the circle.
Speaking of ‘the liberality with which landowners in this country have for years past allowed visitors free access to objects of interest on their property . . ‘, he said that: ‘It would indeed be unfortunate if the Courts were to presume novel and unheard of trusts or statutes from acts of kindly courtesy, and thus drive landowners to close their gates in order to preserve their property.’, and deplored the prospect that building public rights on the foundation of the liberality of landowners might lead them’to close their gates in order to preserve their property.’
Farwell J doubted the correctness of the proposition that dedication in the case of a rural cul-de-sac can be inferred from public use, although he conceded: ‘I venture to think that this expenditure of [public] money is the important consideration, and that in such a case the land-owner who has permitted the expenditure cannot be heard to say that a roadway on which he has allowed public money to be spent is his private road; but the mere transit of passengers to see a view or a house at the end will create no right, as Lord Cranworth says.’
Judges:
Farwell J
Citations:
[1905] 2 Ch 188
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones and Lloyd HL 4-Mar-1999
21 people protested peacefully on the verge of the A344, next to the perimeter fence at Stonehenge. Some carried banners saying ‘Never Again,’ ‘Stonehenge Campaign 10 years of Criminal Injustice’ and ‘Free Stonehenge.’ The officer in charge . .
Approved – In re Ellenborough Park CA 15-Nov-1955
Qualifying Characteristics ofr Easement
Parties claimed a public right to wander through the grounds of the park.
Held: No such right could have been granted or was properly claimed. Lord Evershed MR said: ‘There is no doubt, in our judgment, but that Attorney-General v. Antrobus . .
Cited – Peters v Sinclair 6-May-1913
Supreme Court of Canada – S. brought action against P. for trespass on a strip of land called ‘Ancroft Place’ which he claimed as his property and asked for damages and an injunction. ‘Ancroft Place’ was a cul-de-sac running east from Sherbourne . .
Cited – Brand and Another v Philip Lund (Consultants) Ltd ChD 18-Jul-1989
The plaintiffs objected to the transport of wood from the defendant’s neighbouring land by lorry along an accessway to the plaintiff’s land. They said the defendants had no right of vehicular access. The defendants asserted a public vehicular . .
Cited – Newhaven Port and Properties Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v East Sussex County Council and Another SC 25-Feb-2015
The court was asked: ‘whether East Sussex County Council . . was wrong in law to decide to register an area . . known as West Beach at Newhaven . . as a village green pursuant to the provisions of the Commons Act 2006. The points of principle raised . .
Cited – Kotegaonkar v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another Admn 19-Jul-2012
The court was asked: ‘can a way which is not connected to another public highway, or to some other point to which the public have a right of access, itself be a public highway?’ A path had been registered over part of te claimant’s land, but with no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.192196