Trail Riders Fellowship v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Anor.

Trail Riders Fellowship v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Anor.

The inspector did not make a mistake of fact regarding the 1951 highway map, properly weighed the historical evidence including early maps and the Greenwood map, and was entitled to conclude that the evidence did not show on the balance of probabilities that a public vehicular right of way exists between X-Y. The inspector's approach was within the bounds of public law and her expertise, and there was no public law error justifying quashing the order.

Parties
Claimant: Trail Riders Fellowship; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Second Defendant: Northumberland County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Definitive Map Modification Orders, Public Rights of Way, Mistake of Fact, Weight of Historical Evidence
Administrative Law Planning Law Public Law Judicial Review Definitive Map Modification Orders Public Rights of Way Mistake of Fact Weight of Historical Evidence

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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trail Riders Fellowship

Claimant

Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

First Defendant

Northumberland County Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector made a mistake of fact regarding the 1951 highway map and the existence of a public right of way for vehicles between Greenhill and Fowberry (X-Y)
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to accord proper weight to pre-1931 maps and the Greenwood map's description of the route as 'cross roads'
  3. 3 Whether the inspector misdirected herself in law regarding the improbability of two vehicular cul-de-sacs if X-Y is a footpath only

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector did not make a mistake of fact regarding the 1951 highway map, properly weighed the historical evidence including early maps and the Greenwood map, and was entitled to conclude that the evidence did not show on the balance of probabilities that a public vehicular right of way exists between X-Y. The inspector's approach was within the bounds of public law and her expertise, and there was no public law error justifying quashing the order.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Challenge to the inspector’s decisions fails; no modification to the order. Any consequential matters to be dealt with by written submissions within 14 days if not agreed.