Hayling v Harper & Anor
Vehicular use of the track after 1930 was unlawful under the Road Traffic Act, so no prescriptive easement could arise from such use; however, sufficient evidence existed to infer 20 years' vehicular use prior to 1930, supporting a lost modern grant for a right of way.
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: Sarah Irene Hayling; Defendant/appellant: Stephen Paul Harper; Defendant/appellant: Theresa Harper
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 02 April 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; cross-appeal allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Easements, Right of Way, Prescription, Lost Modern Grant, Statutory Interpretation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sarah Irene Hayling
Claimant/respondent
Stephen Paul Harper
Defendant/appellant
Theresa Harper
Defendant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a prescriptive right of way for vehicles can be acquired over a track designated as a public footpath
- 2 Whether use of the track for vehicular access was unlawful under the Road Traffic Act 1930 and subsequent statutes
- 3 Whether evidence supports a lost modern grant for vehicular access prior to 1930
Ratio Decidendi
Vehicular use of the track after 1930 was unlawful under the Road Traffic Act, so no prescriptive easement could arise from such use; however, sufficient evidence existed to infer 20 years' vehicular use prior to 1930, supporting a lost modern grant for a right of way.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal allowed.
Orders
- No order as to costs of appeal.
- Claimant to have two-thirds of her costs below.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment