Highway — Defined as a public bridleway — Evidence of vehicular use — Whether a vehicular highway — Whether dedication to the public — Whether dedication can be inferred — Evidence of early maps — Defendant’s claim of existence of public highway upheld
The plaintiffs brought proceedings against the defendant seeking an injunction to restrain trespass and damages in respect of the use of Ramscote Lane, Bellingdon, Bucks. They denied that the lane was a public highway as it did not lead from one highway to another. The defendant counterclaimed that the lane was a public highway and that accordingly their use of the lane to remove timber from a woodland they owned nearby was lawful.
The defendant submitted that there was evidence of vehicular use and that, despite its designation as a public bridleway under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, dedication of the lane as a public highway should be inferred.
Held The plaintiffs’ claim was dismissed and the defendant’s counterclaim allowed.
The last vehicular use was in 1946-47 and, because that was more than 20 years prior to the present proceedings, no reliance could be placed on section 31 of the Highways Act 1980. A highway does not have to lead from one highway to another to constitute a public highway. However, there must be evidence of dedication of a highway to the public; dedication and acceptance could be established even if only a particular set of people used it: Beckett v Lyons [1967] Ch 449. Dedication by an owner can be inferred and such inference can be supported by long user. Although there was no modern evidence from living people as to user, there was evidence, inter alia, from the tithe map and an earlier map of 1770 which in the opinion of the experts showed public use. It was the opinion of one of the experts that this lane pre-dated the manorial system and its public use could not have been with the consent of the lord of the manor. On all the facts Ramscote Lane is a public highway for vehicles.
Hedley Marten (instructed by Braby & Waller) appeared for the plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Brand; Mark Blackett-Ord (instructed by Iliffes) appeared for the defendant in the principal action; and Edward Denehan (instructed by Summers & Co, of Beaconsfield) appeared for Miss Perot, the fourth defendant in the counterclaim. The third defendant in the counterclaim, Mrs Hussey, did not appear and was not represented.
