header-logo header-logo

26 February 2010
Issue: 7406 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Highways

Herrick and another v Kidner and another [2010] EWHC 269 (Admin), [2010] All ER (D) 186 (Feb)

The construction to be placed on ss 130A-130D of the Highways Act 1980 was that they were designed to enable members of the public to compel highway authorities to protect and assert the rights of the public to go wherever they chose on a footpath so long as it was reasonable, usual and appropriate.

Any obstruction which significantly interfered with their ability to exercise their right to pass and repass and to enjoy amenity rights over each and every part of the footpath was caught by s 130B(4)(c). The public were not to be confined to a particular part or parts of a footpath.

 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
back-to-top-scroll