Roxlena Limited (Appellant) v R (on the application of Ramblers' Association) and others (Respondents)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0073

Parties

Appellant(s)

Roxlena Ltd.

Respondent(s)

The Ramblers' Association

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Cumberland Council

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal decide the merits of the underlying decision for itself, thereby exceeding its judicial review function? Was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that it would have been perverse for the Inspector to state that the public had withdrawn their assertion of a right of way? Was the Court of Appeal entitled to find that the Inspector had asked the wrong question in reaching her decision?

Facts

This appeal arises out of a dispute concerning public footpaths over private land. S31(1) Highways Act 1980 provides that new public rights of way can come into existence where the way “has been actually enjoyed by the public as of right and without interruption for a full period of 20 years”. The appellant, Roxlena Ltd, owns a large area of woodland in Cumbria called Hayton Wood. In January 2021, Cumbia County Council made an Order under its statutory powers. This Order added 18 new public footpaths and a bridleway over Hayton Wood, allowing the public, as of right, to travel over the land. The appellant objected to the Order, arguing that the public had not enjoyed use of the footpaths for a full period of 20 years. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs therefore appointed an Inspector to decide whether to confirm the Order. The Inspector decided that the Order should not be confirmed because, during the relevant 20 years (1990 to 2010), there was a period of 4 months in 2001 during which the public had not made use of the ways. This was due to an outbreak at the time of foot and mouth disease. The Ramblers’ Association, a charity whose stated purpose is the protection of public rights of way and the promotion of access to the countryside, challenged the Inspector’s decision by judicial review. In the High Court, Lang J upheld the judicial review challenge on the basis that the Inspector had applied the wrong legal test. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Lang J, ordering that the matter should be remitted to the Secretary of State to determine whether the Order should be confirmed. The appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.