Ernstbrunner v Manchester City Council & Anor

Ernstbrunner v Manchester City Council & Anor

The Crown Court was entitled as a matter of law to find that the definitive map showed Footpath 254 diverging from the private road and following the line of setts, and the definitive statement was not in conflict with this finding. The particulars in the statement were not sufficiently unequivocal to override the map. The Appellant’s alternative argument based on the 1963 statement failed. The questions regarding significant interference and discretion under section 130B did not arise given the findings on the route of the footpath.

Parties
Appellant: Edgar Ernstbrunner; First Respondent: Manchester City Council; Second Respondent: Jack Males
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Case Stated (administrative/public Law) / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Crown Court (which Heard Appeal From Magistrates’ Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Definitive Map and Statement, Obstruction of Public Right of Way, Interpretation of Statutory Evidence, Section 130 B Highways Act 1980, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
Administrative Law Public Law Highways Law Definitive Map and Statement Obstruction of Public Right of Way Interpretation of Statutory Evidence Section 130 B Highways Act 1980 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edgar Ernstbrunner

Appellant

Manchester City Council

First Respondent

Jack Males

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Case Stated (administrative/public Law) / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Crown Court (which Heard Appeal From Magistrates’ Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown Court was precluded as a matter of law from finding the route of Footpath 254 as shown on the definitive map diverged from the private road and followed the line of setts on the edge of Mr. Males’s property, by reason of the description in the definitive statement.
  2. 2 Whether the definitive statement and definitive map were in conflict, and if so, which prevails.
  3. 3 Whether the presence of a gate constituted a significant interference with the right of way under section 130B(4)(c) Highways Act 1980.

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown Court was entitled as a matter of law to find that the definitive map showed Footpath 254 diverging from the private road and following the line of setts, and the definitive statement was not in conflict with this finding. The particulars in the statement were not sufficiently unequivocal to override the map. The Appellant’s alternative argument based on the 1963 statement failed. The questions regarding significant interference and discretion under section 130B did not arise given the findings on the route of the footpath.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed