The Court of Appeal has upheld the Ramblers’ Association’s victory in the long-running Hayton Woods dispute, clarifying what counts as an “interruption” sufficient to defeat presumed dedication of a public right of way under section 31 of the Highways Act 1980. The decision in Roxlena Ltd v The Ramblers’ Association [2026] EWCA Civ 534 has direct read-across to Covid-lockdown footpath claims.
Handed down on 7 May 2026, the ruling is essential reading for property practitioners, planning lawyers and local authority advisors.
What was the Hayton Woods dispute?
Hayton Woods is an area of Cumbrian woodland alongside the River Gelt, used by walkers for generations. Roxlena Ltd, an offshore company based in the British Virgin Islands, acquired the land and erected fences, walls and barbed wire to stop public use.
Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 presumes dedication of a way as a public right of way where it has been used by the public, as of right and without interruption, for 20 years. In Hayton Woods, the relevant 20-year period included 2001 — the year of the foot-and-mouth outbreak.
During that outbreak, local residents and visitors were asked to stay off rural land to protect livestock. Roxlena argued that this caused a brief but legally significant “interruption” in public use, defeating the presumed dedication.
Local residents, supported by the Ramblers’ Association, disagreed. They argued the 2001 absence reflected a public-spirited response to a national emergency, not a genuine break in the public’s enjoyment of the right.
What did the Court of Appeal decide?
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s earlier finding in favour of the Ramblers. The judges held that a temporary cessation of use in response to government guidance, where the public would otherwise have continued to use the way, does not amount to an “interruption” for the purposes of section 31.
The legal test focuses on whether the landowner has acted, or whether circumstances have arisen, that genuinely prevent the public from using the way as of right. A voluntary, public-spirited withdrawal of use in response to a national health emergency does not break the 20-year period of qualifying use.
The court also gave guidance on the evidential burden. Where a landowner relies on a short period of non-use to defeat a claim, they must demonstrate that the cause of non-use was something other than the public’s continued belief in their right to use the way.
Why does the ruling reach beyond Cumbria?
The most immediate practical consequence is for footpath claims where the 20-year period includes 2020 or 2021. Many definitive map modification orders now being made or contested cover this period.
Property practitioners, planning lawyers and conveyancers advising on rural land should expect the Covid-lockdown read-across to generate a wave of new disputes. Roxlena puts the burden on landowners to show that non-use during a national emergency was genuinely caused by something other than public restraint. For solicitors advising landowners on title and access risk, the case sharpens the diligence required when buying land with informal public use.
What should lawyers take from it?
For solicitors handling section 31 claims, the judgment confirms three points. First, the focus is on the cause of non-use, not the fact of it. Second, voluntary public restraint during a national emergency does not, by itself, break the period of qualifying use. Third, the landowner who relies on a short non-use period must shoulder a meaningful evidential burden.
Conveyancers acting for buyers of rural land should review pre-contract enquiries to capture any informal pedestrian use and any landowner actions that might have asserted rights to exclude. Sellers may want to think harder about what records they can produce.
The Ramblers’ Association has welcomed the ruling. The original judgment and the Court of Appeal decision are available on Find Case Law.
The Hayton Woods saga is not necessarily over. Roxlena retains a route of appeal to the Supreme Court, though permission would be required. For now, Roxlena stands as the appellate-level statement of how courts will treat short, externally-caused breaks in public use of a contested way.