Maroudas v Secretary of State for Environment Food & Rural Affairs

For an application to modify a definitive map to qualify under section 67(3) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, paragraph 1 of Schedule 14 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 requires strict compliance, subject to de minimis. A valid application may comprise the prescribed form and a supplementary document. Minor omissions may be cured shortly afterwards. But an unsigned and undated form left defective for about ten weeks, never accompanied by the required map, is a substantial departure. Later correspondence showing only willingness to co-operate with an authority’s proposed route extension does not cure it. Appeal allowed.

The appellant appealed against HH Judge Mackie QC’s dismissal of his application under paragraph 12 of Schedule 15 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to quash the Secretary of State’s confirmation, as modified, of a modification order upgrading part of a restricted byway to a byway open to all traffic.

The original application submitted by Mr Drinkwater was unsigned, undated and unaccompanied by a map. About ten weeks later, correspondence addressed the proposed inclusion of the whole route and was signed and dated, but did not clearly adopt the application’s expanded scope or return the plan. The central issue was whether the application form and correspondence together satisfied paragraph 1 of Schedule 14 for the purposes of section 67(3) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

Lord Justice Dyson delivered the judgment of the court, with which Lord Justices Richards and Jackson agreed. The appeal was allowed.

1. Statutory standard. For the purposes of section 67(3) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, an application under section 53(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 must strictly comply with paragraph 1 of Schedule 14, subject to the de minimis principle. Minor departures do not necessarily invalidate an application.
2. Multiple documents. Strict compliance does not require every element of an application to appear in one document. An application may comprise the prescribed form read with another document. A dated and signed letter sent shortly after submission may cure missing signatures or dates, and a minor route-description error may similarly be corrected.
3. Issue left open. The court did not define the full limits of permissible departures. It also left undecided whether the map and documentary evidence required by paragraph 1 must be submitted at the same time as the form. The decision in Botany Bay Council v Remath Investment No 6 Pty Ltd (2000) 50 NSWLR 312 concerned a different statute and jurisdiction.
4. Application of the standard. The February application was invalid when sent. The absence of a signature for approximately ten weeks was a substantial departure; the signature was needed to establish that the application was genuinely made by the purported applicant. The later letter showed willingness to co-operate with the Council’s proposed route extension, rather than correcting an accidental error. The plan was never returned and no accompanying map was supplied. These were substantial departures which the correspondence did not cure.

The application therefore failed to comply with paragraph 1 of Schedule 14. The appeal was allowed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2010] EWCA Civ 280, allowed the appeal.
• Administrative Court: HH Judge Mackie QC dismissed the appellant’s application to quash the Secretary of State’s decision confirming the modification order.