Darwall and another v Dartmoor National Park Authority

A statutory right of access on foot or horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation permits any recreational activity falling within that phrase’s ordinary meaning. Camping is such an activity. The specified modes concern how access is gained, not what recreation may occur afterwards.

The right displaces landowners’ ordinary remedies in trespass, subject to legislation and publicly accessible rules, regulations and byelaws. Clear statutory language limiting property rights is not altered by the principle of legality. Parliamentary materials are unavailable as an interpretative aid under Pepper v Hart where the statutory language is unambiguous.

The appellants owned land forming part of the Dartmoor Commons and sought a declaration that section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 did not confer a public right to pitch tents or camp overnight. The High Court granted that declaration: [2023] EWHC 35 (Ch); [2023] Ch 141.

The Court of Appeal allowed the National Park Authority’s appeal: [2023] EWCA Civ 927; [2024] Ch 107. It held that open-air recreation included wild camping and that the words “on foot and on horseback” identified the permitted means of access.

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether section 10(1) conferred a right to pitch tents or otherwise camp overnight on the Commons.

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Lord Sales and Lord Stephens delivered a joint judgment with which Lord Reed, Lady Rose and Lady Simler agreed. Section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 confers a public right to camp on the Dartmoor Commons, provided access is gained on foot or horseback and the applicable legislation, rules, regulations and byelaws are obeyed.

2. Camping falls within the ordinary meaning of “open-air recreation”. The words “on foot and on horseback” identify the means of gaining access. They do not restrict recreation to activities performed while continually walking or riding. Once lawfully present, a person may stop for camping, picnicking, birdwatching, sketching, kite-flying, games or rock climbing. The second part of section 10(1), concerning a person who enters or remains for that purpose, confirms this construction.

3. The statutory scheme substitutes public regulation for additional restrictions enforced by individual landowners through trespass. Section 10(1) therefore displaces the ordinary right to sue a compliant recreational visitor merely for entering or remaining. Breach of an applicable statutory restriction, rule, regulation or byelaw may remove that protection.

4. The wider context supported the same construction. Sections 59 and 60 and Schedule 2 to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 use “open-air recreation” broadly and expressly exclude activities which would otherwise fall within it. Sections 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 establish coordinated powers of regulation, closure, enforcement and repair. Section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925 expressly excluded camping from a comparable access right, confirming that camping would otherwise fall within the relevant recreational language.

5. The statutory language was unambiguous. Hansard was therefore inadmissible under the rule in Pepper v Hart. Nor could it be admitted through a distinct route merely to identify legislative purpose or mischief. The principle of legality did not alter Parliament’s clear limitation of landowners’ property rights.

6. The 1989 byelaws were not an aid to construing the 1985 Act. They were neither roughly contemporaneous with it nor prepared by or on the instructions of the same governmental body.

7. Although unnecessary to the disposition, the court held that a declaration purporting to determine the public’s rights should not have been granted without the Attorney General being joined to represent the public. The National Park Authority did not represent the public, and courts declare the contested rights of represented parties rather than law in the abstract.

1. United Kingdom Supreme Court: The landowners’ appeal was dismissed unanimously: [2025] UKSC 20.
2. Court of Appeal: The National Park Authority’s appeal was allowed. The court held that section 10(1) included wild camping within open-air recreation: [2023] EWCA Civ 927; [2024] Ch 107.
3. High Court, Chancery Division: The Chancellor granted a declaration that section 10(1) conferred no public right to pitch tents or camp overnight on the Commons: [2023] EWHC 35 (Ch); [2023] Ch 141.