Prescription – Public recreational rights granted pursuant to section 193 of Law of Property Act 1925 – Unauthorised driving criminalised by same provision – Effect on prescriptive claim to driveway
It comes as a surprise to find a case where a company landowner was able to resort to the criminal law in order to make its neighbours pay for the use of an essential driveway across its land. The opportunity arose in Bakewell Management Ltd v Brandwood [2002] EWHC 472 (Ch); [2003] 09 EG 198 because the land was common land over which public recreational rights had been granted pursuant to section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925. On the state of the authorities, the neighbours’ case, which relied upon long use, could not get round the rule that a prescriptive claim cannot be founded upon acts that offend against the criminal law. It was so held, notwithstanding that the relevant offence (unauthorised driving) was presumably created by the section in order to regulate the activities sanctioned by the grant.
For a helpful review of the case and the background law, see
For a colourful outburst of righteous indignation, see the letter from Trevor Kent PPNAEA, of Gerrards Cross, which appeared in Estates Gazette 14 September 2002, p70.
Prescription – Public recreational rights granted pursuant to section 193 of Law of Property Act 1925 – Unauthorised driving criminalised by same provision – Effect on prescriptive claim to driveway
It comes as a surprise to find a case where a company landowner was able to resort to the criminal law in order to make its neighbours pay for the use of an essential driveway across its land. The opportunity arose in Bakewell Management Ltd v Brandwood [2002] EWHC 472 (Ch); [2003] 09 EG 198 because the land was common land over which public recreational rights had been granted pursuant to section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925. On the state of the authorities, the neighbours’ case, which relied upon long use, could not get round the rule that a prescriptive claim cannot be founded upon acts that offend against the criminal law. It was so held, notwithstanding that the relevant offence (unauthorised driving) was presumably created by the section in order to regulate the activities sanctioned by the grant.
For a helpful review of the case and the background law, see No common ground Estates Gazette 8 June 2002, p118, where Sandi Murdoch also outlines the reforms intended to be brought into force under section 8 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
For a colourful outburst of righteous indignation, see the letter from Trevor Kent PPNAEA, of Gerrards Cross, which appeared in Estates Gazette 14 September 2002, p70.
