Judge makes landmark ruling over right of access case

Landowners are being warned about a landmark legal ruling with implications for people sharing a right of access.

The case, Kingsgate Development Projects Ltd v Jordan, concerned whether the addition of gates to land subject to a right of way interfered with its use.

Helen Clutterbuck, solicitor in the litigation and dispute resolution team at Cumbria and Lancashire law firm Napthens, said the case was significant as it was a common scenario for rural landowners to share rights of way.

See also: Business clinic: Neighbour has right of access through our farm

At a hearing in the High Court, Mrs Justice Jefford heard that Kingsgate had complained about the installation of an unlocked, electrically operated gate because it felt the gate narrowed the width of the right of way and was a nuisance.

Third gate

It was also unhappy about the installation of a third gate over the 100m length of track.

The judge ruled that the electric gate did not substantially interfere with the use of the land because it was easily opened and closed.

However, she decided the third gate should be removed because it meant there were three gates over a length of less than 100m which “constitutes a substantial interference with the right of way”.

Ms Clutterbuck said a typical situation was where a farmer or equestrian owner wanted to install a gate to prevent the escape of animals and a neighbouring landowner objected because they found opening a gate a hindrance.

“Important points for landowners and users to take away from this High Court decision are that simply erecting a gate will not usually interfere with a right of way, even if it narrows the right of way at that point. However, where there is more than one in a short distance, it may.

“The court also found that an electric automated gate was not usually a nuisance, particularly one that opened at a push of a button, as this was more convenient than manual gates.

“It’s important for those thinking of installing any gates across a shared right of way to seek legal advice prior to doing so, and then they can ensure their position is fully protected.”