The case asked whether vehicular user of a public footpath in breach of section 34(1) of the 1988 Act could lead to the acquisition by prescription of a public right of way.
Held: Hanning barred a claim to the easement under section 2 of the 1832 Act. The user relied on had been illegal since 1930 and the claimants could not, therefore, rely on the user between 1930 and the commencement of the proceedings. The evidence of user pre 1930 enabled the claimants to establish the acquisition of an easement by lost modern grant before the advent of section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1930.
Ward LJ
[2003] EWCA Civ 1147
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988, Prescription Act 1832 2, Road Traffic Act 1930 14
England and Wales
Citing:
Relied upon – Hanning 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:
Cited – Bakewell 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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.185293 br>
The post Hayling v Harper and Another: CA 2 Apr 2003 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.