Maroudas v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Anor

Applications intended to engage the statutory exceptions preserving mechanically propelled vehicle rights must comply strictly with the applicable requirements. Minor departures may be excused, but the absence of a signature or other substantive requirement is not minor. The application must nevertheless be assessed as a whole. Separate documents and correspondence may together satisfy the statutory requirements where they clearly identify the route, contain the necessary map and evidence, and remove any real uncertainty before the relevant date. A reviewing court may intervene where an inspector misapplies that legal approach, even though the statutory challenge is confined to ordinary public law grounds.

The applicant challenged an inspector’s decision concerning Shiplake Restricted Byway 1. The inspector concluded that an application made under section 53(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 engaged the exceptions in section 67(3) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, preserving public vehicular rights.

The original application form was unsigned, undated, initially described only part of the route and was said not to contain the required map. Subsequent correspondence clarified that the application covered the whole route and supplied a signed and dated confirmation. The central issue was whether the documents, considered together, constituted a compliant application before the statutory relevant date.

1. Application refused. The inspector was correct overall to treat the form, correspondence, maps and accompanying documents as one application. The public vehicular rights were therefore preserved under section 67(3) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.
2. The challenge fell under paragraph 12 of Schedule 15 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and was confined to ordinary public law grounds, as recognised in Norman and Another v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2007] EWCA Civ 334. That limitation did not prevent intervention where the inspector had misapplied the governing legal guidance.
3. The Court of Appeal’s decision in R (Warden and Fellows of Winchester College and Humphrey Feeds Limited v Hampshire County Council and the Secretary of State for Environment and Rural Affairs [2008] EWCA Civ 431 required strict compliance with paragraph 1 of Schedule 14. An application is not compliant merely because the authority has enough information to determine it. Minor departures may be excused under regulation 8(1), but the absence of a signature was a matter of substance, not a minor departure.
4. Strict compliance did not require unnecessary bureaucracy. The application had to be examined as a whole. By the later letter, the route was clearly identified, a map formed part of the process, and the applicant had supplied a signature and date. No person could have been misled about the application by that stage.
5. Costs were awarded to the respondent, summarily assessed at £3,000, payable within 14 days. Permission to appeal was refused by the judge, with liberty to seek permission from a Lord or Lady Justice.

First-instance statutory challenge in the Administrative Court. No prior appellate decision in this litigation is stated.