R v SoS Environment ex parte Bagshaw and Norton
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1994) 68 PCR 402-411(10)Publication details: 1994Subject(s): Summary: QBD 28 April 1994. B and N applied separately to their respective county councils for orders to modify the definitive maps and statements of the rights of way in their areas. B sought to add a footpath and N a by-way relying on witness evidence of 20 years of uninterupted use. Both applied to the SoS against council decisions not to make the orders. This failed for lack of evidence and inconclusive proof. B and N applied to quash the decisions claiming that the SoS had used the wrong test in considering the evidence. Allowed on the grounds that the evidence necessary to establish that a right of way is reasonably alleged to subsist in less than that needed to show that a right of way does subsist.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS52122 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 62192-1001 |
QBD 28 April 1994. B and N applied separately to their respective county councils for orders to modify the definitive maps and statements of the rights of way in their areas. B sought to add a footpath and N a by-way relying on witness evidence of 20 years of uninterupted use. Both applied to the SoS against council decisions not to make the orders. This failed for lack of evidence and inconclusive proof. B and N applied to quash the decisions claiming that the SoS had used the wrong test in considering the evidence. Allowed on the grounds that the evidence necessary to establish that a right of way is reasonably alleged to subsist in less than that needed to show that a right of way does subsist.