The question of sufficiency of evidence for the purpose of the proviso in the subsection is a question of fact for the tribunal to determine in each case. The court rejected a broad submission from the appellant that the 1980 Act and its predecessor had fundamentally altered the common law by introducing much more stringent requirements on a landowner than hitherto if he sought to rely on evidence of no intention to dedicate. Rose LJ (obiter) the proviso did not limit ‘sufficient evidence’ of no such intention to, or by, the matters referred to in section 31(3)-(6), although proof of such matters would provide sufficient evidence in a particular case. The sufficiency of evidence in other cases would necessarily vary from case to case and whether there was sufficient evidence of a lack of intention to dedicate was a matter of fact to be determined by the tribunal of fact in accordance with the evidence in the particular case.
Staughton LJ noted that Denning LJ’s requirements in Faiery of overt and notorious acts were dicta, went on to say that although ‘that was not said in the section itself’, it ‘seemed a sensible rule.’
Judges:
Rose LJ, Staughton and Balcombe LJJ
Citations:
[1993] JPL 851
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Fairey 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:
Cited – Godmanchester 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 . .
Cited – Godmanchester 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: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.236554