Bagshaw v Buxton Local Board of Health: CA 1875

House owners requested an injunction to stop the surveyors of highways removing a low wall and railing enclosing a piece of ground in front of it. The surveyors alleged that the ground was part of a highway and that the wall and railing were an obstruction to the safe and convenient passage along it. The road opposite the house, exclusive of the piece of ground, was about 36 feet wide. The owners said that given that, the wall did not obstruct ‘the safe and convenient passage along [the] street’ referring to the type of obstruction against which the surveyors of highways could act under the 1847 Act.
Held: Jessel MR said that ‘along the street’ meant along the whole of the street: ‘[I]f you take and enclose a portion of the street itself, how can it be said that that is not an obstruction to the safe and convenient passage along the street? It appears to me that I should be cutting down this Act of Parliament and making it almost meaningless if I so held’
Jessel LJ MR
(1875-76) LR 1 Ch D 220
Towns Improvement Clauses Act 1847
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedHerrick and Another v Kidner and Another Admn 17-Feb-2010
Psychological Obstruction to Public Footpath
A public footpath crossed the appellants’ land. They constructed a gateway across it which they now accepted had been a significant obstruction of the right of way. The local authority served a notice requiring its removal, including the stone . .
CitedAli v The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council CA 17-Nov-2010
The claimant appealed against rejection of her claim for damages after slipping on a footpath maintainable by the defendant after an accumulation of mud and debris. The claim appeared to be the first under section 130, and the highway authority . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 January 2021; Ref: scu.401657