David Moore & Anor v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

David Moore & Anor v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

The Inspector lawfully found an irreconcilable conflict between the Definitive Map and Statement, properly displaced the presumption in favour of the Map, and reached a conclusion on the balance of probabilities that the bridleway existed on the C-D-E-B alignment. The Inspector did not err in law, act unfairly, or fail to give adequate reasons. The claimants' grounds of challenge are rejected.

Parties
Claimant: David Moore; Claimant: Dawn Moore; First Defendant: The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Second Defendant: Hertfordshire County Council; Third Defendant: Anthony Barrett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Statutory Challenge (judicial Review) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Definitive Map Modification Orders, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Interpretation of Public Documents, Procedural Fairness, Duty to Give Reasons
Administrative Law Planning Law Public Rights of Way Definitive Map Modification Orders Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Interpretation of Public Documents Procedural Fairness Duty to Give Reasons

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Moore

Claimant

Dawn Moore

Claimant

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

First Defendant

Hertfordshire County Council

Second Defendant

Anthony Barrett

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Challenge (judicial Review) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector lawfully confirmed the Hertfordshire County Council (Little Berkhamsted 18) Modification Order 2021 relocating Bridleway 18 over the claimants' land
  2. 2 Whether there was an irreconcilable conflict between the Definitive Map and Statement justifying modification
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector erred in law, acted unfairly, or failed to give adequate reasons

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector lawfully found an irreconcilable conflict between the Definitive Map and Statement, properly displaced the presumption in favour of the Map, and reached a conclusion on the balance of probabilities that the bridleway existed on the C-D-E-B alignment. The Inspector did not err in law, act unfairly, or fail to give adequate reasons. The claimants' grounds of challenge are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed.