header-logo header-logo

16 May 2014
Issue: 7606 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Inclosure Acts

R (on the application of Andrews) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2014] EWHC 1435 (Admin), [2014] All ER (D) 72 (May)

The word “private” in the list in s 10 of the Inclosure (Consolidation) Act 1801 was that it applied to all constituent elements of that list. That s 10 of the 1801 Act was designed to deal with “private” rights of way and s 8 of the 1801 Act was designed to deal with “public” rights of way was confirmed by the provisions concerning how the maintenance expenses of each were to be met. The argument that the terms of s 11 of the 1801 Act showed that the word “private”, at the beginning of the list in s 10 of the 1801 Act, was confined to “roads” did not survive the arguments to the contrary.

 

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

NLJ Career Profile: Hugo Plowman, Mishcon de Reya

NLJ Career Profile: Hugo Plowman, Mishcon de Reya

From global fraud cases to fishing off-grid, Mishcon de Reya’s chair of dispute resolution Hugo Plowman discusses mentors, management switching off

Maguire Family Law—Jennifer Hudec, Ciara Florey, Alice Ferguson & Ruth Wynn

Maguire Family Law—Jennifer Hudec, Ciara Florey, Alice Ferguson & Ruth Wynn

Maguire Family Law announces partner promotion and new hires amid a record year for enquiries

Switalskis—Rebecca Parry & Hannah Gamble

Switalskis—Rebecca Parry & Hannah Gamble

Switalskis wills and probate team extends reach with two appointments

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll