Massey and Another v Boulden and Another: CA 14 Nov 2002

The claimants said they had acquired a right of way by vehicle over land, a village green, having driven over it for more than forty years. It was responded that the act of driving over the land other than on a track had been an unlawful act, and as such could not be the basis for acquiring a right by prescription.
Held: Under the 1988 Act, such driving was a criminal offence, even though as a penal statute it must be interpreted restrictively. The common land fell within the statute. However the 2000 Act and 2002 Regulations would now create the right to purchase such a right of way.

Simon Brown, Mantell, Sedley LJJ
Times 27-Nov-2002, Gazette 23-Jan-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1634, [2003] 2 All ER 87, [2003] 1 WLR 1792, [2003] P and CR 355
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 68, Road Traffic Act 1988 34(1), Vehicular Access Across Common and Other Land (England) Regulations 2002 (2002 No 1711)
England and Wales
AppliedHanning and Others v Top Deck Travel Group Ltd CA 9-Jun-1993
The owner of a common appealed a finding that the neighbouring land owner had acquired by prescription a right of way across the common to use a track for commercial vehicles (buses) to get to the property (the bus depot).
Held: An easement . .

Cited by:
CitedBakewell Management Limited v Brandwood and others HL 1-Apr-2004
Houses were built next to a common. Over many years the owners had driven over the common. The landowners appealed a decision that they could not acquire a right of way by prescription over the common because such use had been unlawful as a criminal . .
CitedWall v Collins and Another CA 17-May-2007
Properties, when leasehold, had acquired rights of way by prescription over neighbouring land. The freehold interests were acquired, and the claimant now appealed a decision that the right of way acquired under his lease had disappeared.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.178288