The Fellowship had applied for orders upgrading public rights of way. The council rejected the applications saying that the digital mapping software used to repare the maps submitted were not compliant with the requirements of the legislation. They now appealed against rejection of their appeal.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘a map which is produced to a scale of 1:25,000, even if it is digitally derived from an original map with a scale of 1:50,000, satisfies the requirements of paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 14 provided that it is indeed ‘a map’ and that it shows the way or ways to which the application relates.’
Paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 14 requires (1) something that is identifiable as ‘a map’, which (2) is drawn to a scale of not less than 1:25,000, and which (3) shows the way or ways to which the application relates. Since this did not stipulate for an OS map, it was wrong to insist that a map submitted must include the same details, and nor was there any requirement that the original scale be not less than 1:25,000. The Council’s position was one of pedantry.
Maurice Kay LJ concluded: ‘All this leads me to the view that, whilst I am confident that ‘drawn’ was never intended to be construed as being confined to ‘originally drawn’, it should also now be given a meaning which embraces later techniques for the production of maps. For practical purposes, when a computer is used to translate stored data into a printed map, it can properly be said that the computer and the printer are, on human command, ‘drawing’ the map which emerges to the scale which has been selected. I find no difficulty in this approach in circumstances in which the requirements do not prescribe that the submitted map depicts the features which are depicted on an original 1:25,000 OS map.’
Lord Justice Maurice Kay Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Lady Justice Black and Lady Justice Rafferty
 EWCA Civ 553,  PTSR 987,  WLR(D) 186
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
England and Wales
Appeal from – Trail Riders’ Fellowship and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Dorset County Council Admn 2-Oct-2012
The claimants challenged rejection of five applications under section 5 of the 1981 Act for modification orders allowing the upgrade of routes to provide vehicular public rights of way. The applications had been submitted using digital mapping. The . .
Cited – Grant v Southwestern and County Properties Ltd ChD 1974
The court had to decide whether a tape recording fell within the expression ‘document’ in the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Held: The furnishing of information had been treated as one of the main functions of a document, and the tape recording . .
Cited – Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security HL 2-Jan-1981
The court was asked whether nurses could properly involve themselves in a pregnancy termination procedure not known when the Act was passed, and in particular, whether a pregnancy was ‘terminated by a medical practitioner’, when it was carried out . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance) HL 13-Mar-2003
Court to seek and Apply Parliamentary Intention
The appellant challenged the practice of permitting cell nuclear replacement (CNR), saying it was either outside the scope of the Act, or was for a purpose which could not be licensed under the Act.
Held: The challenge failed. The court was to . .
Appeal from – Dallas v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Feb-2016
Test for contempt was accessible and foreseeable.
The applicant had been convicted of contempt of court in that whilst acting as a juror, and in defiance of an explicit direction from the judge had researched the defendant in the internet, and passed on her findings to other jurors.
Held: the . .
Appeal from – Trail Riders Fellowship and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Dorset County Council SC 18-Mar-2015
Objection had been made that a plan, used to register a right of way before it would disappear if un-registered, was to the wrong scale and that therefore the application was ineffetive.
Held: The Council’s appeal failed. The plan was too . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 October 2021; Ref: scu.509983