What qualifies as unlawful obstruction of a prescriptive right of way?

Bramwell and Low Meadows Equestrian Centre Ltd v Peter Robinson [2016 EWHC B26(Ch)] is a useful illustration of unjustified interference with the exercise by others of a prescriptive right of way across land.  There are many such cases, and each is heavily fact dependent, but this was a clear example of concerted and unjustified obstructive behaviour. The Bramwells owned an equestrian property which gained access to the public highway along a private track, situated in part on land belonging to their neighbour, Mr Robinson.  It was agreed that they had a prescriptive right to do so. The Bramwells operated a livery yard and their customers, suppliers, vets and visitors all used the track.  The metalled track had grass verges on each side and several passing places. Mr Robinson’s farmhouse faced the track and he was unhappy with the number of vehicle movements, the early morning and late evening visits, the use of the track by HGVs (such as horse boxes) and the speed of the vehicles along the track.  He believed that the Bramwells were using the prescriptive right of way excessively. However, there was little clear evidence that all or any of these factors had worsened over the years and certainly none to suggest that the prescriptive use of the track was confined to non-HGV vehicles or to daytime hours only. Mr Robinson took many steps to make use of the track more difficult or unpleasant. The judge agreed that he had closed off the passing places; erected posts in the verge which made it more difficult for wide vehicles to pass down the track; installed a large number of very high additional speed bumps; erected livestock gates which he required be kept closed at all times and shouted at drivers, accusing them wrongly of speeding or visiting at antisocial hours. The judge held that: The current use of the track was not excessive (in terms of hours, speed and number of vehicles using it) Closing two of the passing places was legitimate. One was permitted by express consent of Mr Robinson which could be withdrawn at will. One had not been used long enough to establish a prescriptive right.  Closure of the remaining passing place was obstruction of the prescriptive right of way Erecting most of the posts did not obstruct the reasonable passage of vehicles or horses to a substantial degree (following Zieleniewsi v Scheyd [2012] EWCA Civ 247) Installing many extreme speedbumps, which could damage the underside of cars even when travelling slowly, did amount to substantial interference with the reasonable user of the right of way Installing gates was not necessarily an obstruction, but insisting on them always being closed was an actionable interference with that reasonable user Blocking in drivers, shouting at them and using foul language, and making false accusations all amounted to harassment Refusing to let Mr Bramwell repair a pothole in the track was a breach of the implied right to maintain any track over which a landowner has a right of way Mr Robinson was ordered to pay £4,800 in damages (partly to reimburse the Bramwells for lost rent when their tenants moved out due to the harassment, partly for inconvenience, anxiety and distress). Bearing in mind the legal costs, the judge was quick to remind both parties that mediation would have been a better route. Sue Highmore is a property law consultant