Mohammed Sagier v Harbans Kaur
Decision date: 29 July 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKUT 217 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether Mr Sagier acquired a private prescriptive right of way on foot over part of Mrs Kaur's driveway on a private road. The Upper Tribunal held the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by not properly considering the statutory Prescription Act 1832 claim and by treating signage and a single oral protest as defeating acquisition; the UT allowed the appeal and directed registration of the right of way (subject to reinstating or gating the gap if currently fenced closed).
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The UT identified that for a statutory prescriptive claim under the Prescription Act 1832, a physical obstruction within the 20‑year period that has not been acquiesced in for one year should not be treated as an interruption of the required period. The Tribunal also found that signage reading “No public right of way”, in context and judged by what a reasonable neighbouring householder would understand, may be insufficient to render ordinary domestic pedestrian use contentious and thus may not defeat acquisition.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment observed (non‑bindingly) that signs aimed at the general public or motorists can be ambiguous as to whether they address neighbouring occupiers and that context and the presumed characteristics of the reasonable user are important in interpreting such notices. It also suggested that where signage has been intermittently removed and replaced, the evidential burden lies on the landowner to prove continuous display or effective notice sufficient to render use contentious.