000			02032cab a22002295a 4500
001			L139782
008			070808e20070620xxk f w 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u139782
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aR (on the application of (1) Godmanchester Town Council (2) Drain) V Secretary of State for the Environment , Food and Rural Affairs and (1) Cambridgeshire CC (2) Yatten _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2007
520			_a[2007] UKHL 28, 20 June 2007. The appellants in both cases argued that under the Highway Act 1980 s31(1) footpaths which had been in use by the public for 20 years would automatically assume the status of a public footpath. This was the case unless there was "sufficient evidence" that the owner of the land had not intended it to be open to the public. The respondents' cases had turned on two points related to this: (1) whether the sufficient evidence had to be demonstrated by the landowners or whether the intention known only to themselves was sufficient evidence; and (2) whether that intent had to be demonstrated for the full 20 years or just at some point within that period. "Held": (1)The law as stated in Fairey V Southampton CC and SOS Environment V Beresford Trustees was correct. The test of sufficient evidence was objective. The landowner would have to communicate his intention to the public in some way. An uncommunicated intention could not satisfy the proviso. (2) The intention not to dedicate did not have to be demonstrated continuously for 20 years, and merely meant "at some point within that period". Appeals allowed.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aGODMANCHESTER TOWN COUNCIL V SOS ENVIRONMENT AND ANOTHER
650	2	4	_aDRAIN V SOS ENVIRONMENT AND ANOTHER
650	2	4	_aFAIREY V SOUTHAMPTON CC
650	2	4	_aSOS ENVIRONMENT V BERESFORD TRUSTEES
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aBoundary disputes _96221
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/28.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org.uk...
942			_n0
999			_c79090 _d79090