Hale v Norfolk County Council: CA 17 Nov 2000

A public right away could not be presumed to have been granted by the owner of land adjoining a public highway merely from the erection of fences or hedges on the side of a highway. There is no simple rule that the land was deemed to have been dedicated to public use ‘from hedge-to-hedge’. Some greater act was needed to provide evidence that there had been any gift to the public. The 1936 Act was concerned with public health, and could not be used to create rights of way. Where a highway is constructed under section 24(2) of the 1980 Act there is no formal requirement of dedication as a highway.

Citations:

Times 19-Dec-2000, Gazette 11-Jan-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 290, [2001] Ch 717

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1936, Highways Act 1980 24(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLondon Borough of Bexley v Maison Maurice Ltd ChD 15-Dec-2006
The council had taken land by compulsory purchase in order to construct a dual carriageway. It then claimed that it had left undedicated a strip .5 metre wide as a ransom strip to prevent the defendant restoring access to the road.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147323