Tuley & Anor v. The Highland Council [2007] ScotSC 34 (09 July 2007)

Tuley & Anor v. The Highland Council [2007] ScotSC 34 (09 July 2007)

The court held that occasional horse riding on the red path, in circumstances causing little or no erosion, would be a responsible exercise of access rights. The erection and maintenance of barriers by the pursuers was an unreasonable interference with such responsible access rights. The defenders' notice was lawfully issued and the pursuers' application for recall was refused.

Citation
[2007] ScotSC 34
Parties
Pursuers: Mr. Graham Tuley and Mrs. Margot Tuley; Defenders: The Highland Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Summary Application (appeal Under Land Reform (scotland) Act 2003, S.14(4)) / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Application dismissed; notice upheld.
Legal Topics
Public Access Rights, Landowner Obligations, Statutory Interpretation, Responsible Exercise of Access Rights, Local Authority Enforcement Powers
Property Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Public Access Rights Landowner Obligations Statutory Interpretation Responsible Exercise of Access Rights Local Authority Enforcement Powers

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. Graham Tuley and Mrs. Margot Tuley

Pursuers

The Highland Council

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Summary Application (appeal Under Land Reform (scotland) Act 2003, S.14(4)) / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the erection of barriers by the landowners at either end of the red path constituted an unreasonable interference with responsible public access rights under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.
  2. 2 Whether the Highland Council's notice under section 14(2) of the 2003 Act requiring removal or modification of the barriers was lawfully issued.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that occasional horse riding on the red path, in circumstances causing little or no erosion, would be a responsible exercise of access rights. The erection and maintenance of barriers by the pursuers was an unreasonable interference with such responsible access rights. The defenders' notice was lawfully issued and the pursuers' application for recall was refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; notice upheld.

Orders

  • Sustains the defenders' first and second pleas-in-law.
  • Repels the pursuers' plea-in-law.