The High Court’s decision clarifies how the law treats gates, signs, and “grumpy” behaviour on shared land. It moves away from a focus on physical impediments and begins to consider the psychological atmosphere of a right of way.

Background:

The case involves a longstanding dispute between neighbouring farmers in Shropshire over the use of a shared access track and a common right of way. The appellant, Mrs. Whiston, owns Lower Fenemere Farm, where she has lived for 80 years and continues to farm a flock of Charolais sheep. The respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Leonard, own the adjoining property, Lower Fenemere Court, which was originally part of the same farm before it was divided in 1996. The Leonards hold a legal right of way over a section of Mrs. Whiston’s land, including a specific “triangular area” used by vehicles to turn around. Because Mrs. Whiston’s sheep graze near this track, she has historically used gates to prevent them from escaping. While an original gate was typically left open and only closed during sheep handling, the relationship between the neighbours deteriorated during the 2020 pandemic lockdowns.

In August 2020, Mrs. Whiston installed a “new gate” and fixed fencing that physically obstructed larger vehicles from entering or leaving the Leonards’ property. Following legal complaints, she replaced this in December 2021 with “double gates” located slightly further down the track. These gates were kept closed and featured a prominent sign stating: “Farm Livestock. Please keep gate shut at all times”.

The Leonards alleged that, although the double gates were not locked, their constant closure—combined with the restrictive wording of the sign and Mrs. Whiston’s habit of “not mincing her words” with visitors—created an effective deterrent.

They provided evidence of delivery drivers and taxi operators who, fearing they were trespassing or wishing to avoid conflict altogether, refused to open the gates and instead performed dangerous reversing manoeuvres down the long access track. A secondary dispute involved a sliding barn door on the Leonards’ property that opened directly onto the shared yard. Mrs. Whiston counterclaimed that the Leonards were committing a nuisance by leaving this door open, enabling her sheep to wander into their building and their rescue animals to potentially escape onto her farm.

Decision:

The High Court dismissed both the appellant’s appeal and the respondent’s cross-appeal, upholding the original County Court ruling. The Court concluded that, while a gate on a right of way is not necessarily an obstruction in and of itself, the context of its use—including signage and the landowner’s behaviour—can make it a “substantial interference” and thereby illegal.

Implications:

Historically, if a gate was not locked, it usually was not considered a “substantial interference”. This case effectively changes the status quo. The Court ruled that if you use a right of way in an intimidating manner, you are breaking the law. If a “reasonable person” is deterred from using their legal right of way because they want to avoid a shouting match, then the landowner has committed an actionable nuisance.

Any signage must be neutral and not aggressive. The Court ordered a new sign that explicitly invited the neighbours’ visitors to use the area for turning. If you put up a sign on a shared track, it should acknowledge the other person’s rights (e.g., “Please shut gate after you to secure livestock—Access for No. 10 remains open”).