header-logo header-logo

Highways

25 November 2010
Issue: 7443 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Ali v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1282, [2010] All ER (D) 193 (Nov)

Section 130 of the Highways Act 1980 was concerned with the protection of the legal rights of the public at large. The rights in question were the rights of the general public to use the public highway. The section related to legal rights of access, not the safety of the highway. It placed no express obligation on the highway authority to remove obstructions, and there was no justification for the implication of such an obligation, especially since express provision was made about the duty of a highway authority to remove obstructions in s 150.

Section 263(1) provided for the vesting of public highways in the highway authority, but the legal interest thereby created was an unusual and limited one. A highway authority was not an occupier of the highway and did not owe to highway users a common law duty of care. Sections 149 and 150 regulated the powers and duties of highway authorities with respect to the removal of highway

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

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll