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

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

North West residential development team welcomes partner and associate

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
A landmark ruling has delivered the first judicial application of the UK’s anti-SLAPP regime and provided fresh guidance on abusive litigation
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
back-to-top-scroll