References: [2011] EWCA Civ 1514, [2012] RTR 19, [2012] PTSR 970
Links: Bailii
Coram: Ward, Aikens, Lewison LJJ
Ratio: The claimant sought compensation after the Borough ordered fencing to be erected along the roadside so as to obstruct vehicular access to and from his premises. If the action was taken under section 66(2) and not section 80, then Lewison LJ said that the council’s proposed action and the reason for taking it ‘fall squarely within section 66(2)’, and accordingly section 80 did not apply to the facts of the case
Statutes: Highways Act 1980 66(2) 80
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Applied – Pretty v Solly CA ([1859] EngR 249, Commonlii, (1859) 26 Beav 606, (1859) 53 ER 1032)
In a statutory construction the specific overrides the general – generalia specialibus non derogant. Sir John Romilly MR said: ‘The general rules which are applicable to particular and general enactments in statutes are very clear, the only . . - Cited – Marshall v Blackpool Corporation HL ([1935] AC 16, [1934] All ER 437)
A land-owner having land adjacent to a public highway has, at common law, free access to and from the highway at any point where they abut.
Lord Atkin said: ‘The owner of land adjoining a highway has a right of access to the highway from any . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 12 January 2020
Ref: 449856 br>
The post Cusack v London Borough of Harrow: CA 7 Dec 2011 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.