The college appealed against modifications of definitive map to upgrade two footpaths to byways open to all traffic. The college was circled by footpaths which it wished to protect when the council constructed a new bypass.
Held: The College’s appeal succeeded. If the defendant was to alter the map, the statutory procedure had to be followed precisely. The applications for the alterations had not been supported by the necessary information.
The Court considered what was meant by an application made in accordance with paragraph 1 of Schedule 14 to the 1981 Act within the meaning of section 67(6) of the 2006 Act. Dyson LJ said: ‘In my judgment, section 67(6) requires that, for the purposes of section 67(3), the application must be made strictly in accordance with paragraph 1. That is not to say that there is no scope for the application of the principle that the law is not concerned with very small things (de minimis non curat lex). Indeed this principle is explicitly recognised in regulation 8(1) of the 1993 Regulations. Thus minor departures from paragraph 1 will not invalidate an application.’
Dyson, Ward, Thomas LJJ
 EWCA Civ 431, Times 08-May-2008,  1 WLR 138
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 53(5), Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006
England and Wales
Appeal from – Winchester College, Warden and Fellows of and Another; Regina (on the Application of) v Food and Rural Affairs Admn 28-Nov-2007
The applicants challenged the refusal of the defendant to alter the definitive right of way map. . .
Cited – Maroudas v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs CA 18-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against an order refusing his request to quash a footpath modification order. The request had not been signed as required.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘subject to the de minimis principle, an application must strictly . .
Cited – Fortune and Others v Wiltshire Council and Another CA 20-Mar-2012
The court considered the contnuation of public rights of way against the new system of the ending of certain unrecorded rights.
Held: he appeal failed. ‘As a matter of plain language, section 67(2)(b) does not, in our judgment, require the . .
Cited – 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 – 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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 February 2021; Ref: scu.267229