R v Isle of Wight CC , ex parte O`Keefe and another
R v Isle of Wight CC , ex parte O`Keefe and another
- 1990
- Property and Compensation Reports (1990) 59 PCR 283-291(9) .
QBD 16 February 1989 In the first application for judicial review of a decision of the council (I) on 2 December 1987. I made an order under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 s53(3)(c)(i) adding to the definitive map a public right of way over land owned by O`s wife. In the second application, O`s wife applied for judicial review of the actual modification order made on 29 February 1988. Both contended that the council officials who presented the report to the relevant committee failed to present the evidence fully and failed to explain the law governing whether a public right of way existed. QBD held that the officials had failed to present the evidence fully and had failed to consider properly the legal problems arising when considering whether there was a public right of way, since they had not considered what effect the fact that the land had been held in trust for some years and mortgaged would have on that dedication . The modification order and the decision of I were quash
CASE LAW
HIGHWAYS
QBD 16 February 1989 In the first application for judicial review of a decision of the council (I) on 2 December 1987. I made an order under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 s53(3)(c)(i) adding to the definitive map a public right of way over land owned by O`s wife. In the second application, O`s wife applied for judicial review of the actual modification order made on 29 February 1988. Both contended that the council officials who presented the report to the relevant committee failed to present the evidence fully and failed to explain the law governing whether a public right of way existed. QBD held that the officials had failed to present the evidence fully and had failed to consider properly the legal problems arising when considering whether there was a public right of way, since they had not considered what effect the fact that the land had been held in trust for some years and mortgaged would have on that dedication . The modification order and the decision of I were quash
CASE LAW
HIGHWAYS