Sinclair v Kearsley & Anor

There was no evidence of dedication or acceptance of the cul-de-sac as a public vehicular highway. The planning and closure applications were based on misapprehension and do not establish public vehicular rights. The land remains private, with only a public right of way on foot along the footpath.

Parties: Claimant/respondent: David James Sinclair; Defendant/appellant/part 20 Claimant: Anthony Jack Kearsley; Defendant/appellant/part 20 Claimant: Jane Elizabeth Kearsley; Defendant to Part 20 Claim/respondent: Salford City Council
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 24 February 2010
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Dedication of Highways, Implied Dedication, Public Rights of Way, Vehicular Access, Planning Law

Property Law Highways Law Dedication of Highways Implied Dedication Public Rights of Way Vehicular Access Planning Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

David James Sinclair

Claimant/respondent

Anthony Jack Kearsley

Defendant/appellant/part 20 Claimant

Jane Elizabeth Kearsley

Defendant/appellant/part 20 Claimant

Salford City Council

Defendant to Part 20 Claim/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the verge between the footpath and the boundary wall of 9 Victoria Crescent is part of a public highway with public vehicular rights
2 Whether there was implied dedication and acceptance of the land as a public vehicular highway

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

The appeal is allowed. The cul-de-sac south of Sandwich Road is not a public vehicular highway, save for the public footpath.