Roxlena Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Cumbria County Council

Roxlena Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Cumbria County Council

The committee of the county council was entitled to make the order based on the evidence available, applying the correct statutory test of 'reasonably alleged to subsist.' The authority was not required to resolve all factual disputes or apply the balance of probabilities at the order-making stage. The evidence had not previously been substantively considered, so its discovery was valid. There was no procedural or substantive error justifying judicial intervention.

Parties
Appellant: Roxlena Ltd.; Respondent: Cumbria County Council; Interested Party: Peter Lamb
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (appeal) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Definitive Map Modification Orders, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Highways Act 1980, Standard of Proof for Rights of Way, Procedural Duties of Surveying Authorities
Administrative Law Planning Law Public Rights of Way Definitive Map Modification Orders Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Highways Act 1980 Standard of Proof for Rights of Way Procedural Duties of Surveying Authorities

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roxlena Ltd.

Appellant

Cumbria County Council

Respondent

Peter Lamb

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (appeal) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct approach for a surveying authority to evidence when making an order to add a footpath to the definitive map under section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981?
  2. 2 Was there sufficient evidence to justify making the order for the footpaths and bridleway?
  3. 3 Did the county council fail to properly investigate evidence of use during the 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak?

Ratio Decidendi

The committee of the county council was entitled to make the order based on the evidence available, applying the correct statutory test of 'reasonably alleged to subsist.' The authority was not required to resolve all factual disputes or apply the balance of probabilities at the order-making stage. The evidence had not previously been substantively considered, so its discovery was valid. There was no procedural or substantive error justifying judicial intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed