Rights of way, the definitive map and statement and interpreting public documents

The High Court (Dan Kolinsky KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) has handed down judgment (17 December 2025) in Moore v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2025] EWHC 3313 (Admin) dismissing a challenge to the decision of an Inspector to confirm the Hertfordshire County Council (Little Berkhamsted 18) Modification Order 2021 (“the Order”).

The Order had amended the Definitive Map and Statement by amending the route of a bridleway in Little Berkhamsted. This meant that the route of the bridleway now ran over land owned by the Claimants.

The Claimants challenged the decision to confirm the Order on four grounds.

Ground one concerned the conclusion of the Inspector that there was an irreconcilable conflict between the Definitive Map and the Statement which was sufficient to displace the presumption that the Definitive Map was correct. The High Court held that, in determining whether there was an “irreconcilable” conflict between the definitive map and statement, following R (Norfolk County Council) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2006] 1 WLR 1103 the decision maker was required to determine whether there was a realistic or reasonable meaning capable of being given to the statement that would avoid a conflict with the definitive map. In doing so, the Judge drew on established principles concerning the construction of public documents including the validation principle, the jurisprudence on which was considered in the context of the interpretation of public documents in DB Symmetry v Swindon BC [2023] 1 WLR 198. The High Court concluded that the Inspector’s approach aligned with both Norfolk and DB Symmetry.

Ground three (which was considered next by the Court) alleged that there had been a breach of procedural fairness, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Griffiths v TUI (UK) Limited [2025] AC 374 for the proposition that it was unfair for the inspector to make determinations on issue not put directly to the Claimant’s witnesses. In rejecting this ground, the Judge referred to the specific procedural rules governing rights of way inquiries. He noted that, unlike court proceedings, inquiries as both inquisitorial and adversarial and said that there was good reason to be cautious about arguments that conclusions could be drawn from the lack of cross examination on a particular point in the context of a public inquiry of that nature, which generally involve large amount of evidence from a wide variety of sources and may be subject to pressures of time. He highlighted the danger of the court seeking to unpick the rationale for such choices with necessarily limited information as to the precise dynamics in which any exchange in cross-examination did or did not occur. On the facts, there had been no unfairness and that the Inspector’s findings were consistent with the written case advanced by the map making authority. Moreover, there was no evidence of what, if anything, the Claimants would have done differently such that they were incapable, even if there had been procedural unfairness, of demonstrating substantial prejudice. The High Court rejected also a rationality challenge.

Grounds two and four concerned the inspector’s reasoning, with the Court rejecting both grounds on the basis that the Inspector’s reasons were clear and lawful. The claim was therefore dismissed on all grounds.

This decision is likely to be of particular interest to rights of way practitioners for the way in which it harmonises the law on reconciling the definitive map and statement with the law on the interpretation on public documents more generally, as well as for the analysis of the approach to cross-examination at public inquiries.

A copy of the judgment is available here.

Charles Streeten and Mark O’Brien O’Reilly are barristers at Francis Taylor Building. They acted for the successful Defendant, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, instructed by the Government Legal Department.