- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Darwall & Anor v Dartmoor National Park Authority
Factual and Procedural Background
The case concerns whether section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 grants the public a right to pitch tents or otherwise camp overnight on Dartmoor Commons (“the Commons”). The Appellants are farmers and landowners who keep livestock on part of the Commons. Fearing damage from so-called “wild camping,” they issued Part 8 proceedings seeking a declaration that no such public right exists. The Respondent, the Dartmoor National Park Authority (“Respondent”), opposed the claim.
At first instance Judge Flaux (Chancery Division) granted the declaration. The Court of Appeal (Judges Vos MR, Underhill LJ and Newey LJ) reversed, holding that camping is included within “open-air recreation” under section 10(1). The Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, where the present judgment—delivered by Judge Sales and Judge Stephens with agreement of Judge Reed, Judge Rose and Judge Simler—was handed down.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on its proper construction, section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 confers on the public a right to camp on the Commons after entering on foot or on horseback.
- Whether the principle of legality prevents section 10(1) from limiting landowners’ common-law right to sue in trespass absent clear statutory words.
- Whether extrinsic materials such as Hansard, post-enactment byelaws, and historical reports are admissible aids to the construction of section 10(1).
- Whether procedural irregularity arose from the absence of the Attorney General—who represents the public interest—when a declaration purporting to bind the public was sought.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The phrase “on foot and on horseback” in section 10(1) qualifies the type of recreation permitted; only activities undertaken while walking or riding are authorised, excluding camping.
- Camping constitutes a cessation of movement, not an act “on foot or on horseback.”
- Applying the principle of legality, Parliament must use clear words to deprive landowners of trespass remedies; section 10(1) contains no such clarity.
- Statements in Hansard support a narrow construction, and post-1985 byelaws show that camping can be regulated only by specific prohibition, implying no inherent right.
Respondent’s Arguments
- “On foot and on horseback” describes merely the means of access; once on the land, any ordinary form of open-air recreation—expressly including wild camping—is permitted unless restricted by byelaws.
- Contextual reading alongside the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and other statutory materials shows “open-air recreation” to be a broad concept naturally embracing camping.
- The principle of legality is satisfied because section 10(1) clearly displaces the private law of trespass for compliant recreational users.
- Post-enactment byelaws and long-standing public practice corroborate that Parliament contemplated camping as lawful recreation.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R (N3) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKSC 6 | Modern statement of purposive statutory construction | Cited as authority for reading words in context and purpose |
| R (Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens) v Secretary of State [2022] UKSC 3 | Purposive interpretation; meaning derived from context | Quoted to emphasise contextual reading of section 10(1) |
| Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke [1975] AC 591 | Meaning of statutory words sought in their legislative context | Used to support contextual approach |
| Ex p Spath Holme [2001] 2 AC 349 | Importance of citizens understanding legislation | Reinforces need for clear, contextual statutory language |
| Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 | Limited admissibility of Hansard | Court held ambiguity threshold not met; Hansard excluded |
| Wilson v First County Trust (No 2) [2004] 1 AC 816 | Hansard use falls within Pepper v Hart safeguards | Relied on to refuse wider use of parliamentary material |
| R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 26 | Confirmation of Pepper v Hart limits | Cited consistently with refusal to admit Hansard |
| Ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 | Principle of legality—clear words needed to override rights | Court found section 10(1) sufficiently clear; legality principle not engaged |
| Cadogan v McGirk [1996] 4 All ER 643 | Statutes may legitimately modify property rights | Quoted to show expropriatory effect alone does not alter clear wording |
| PACCAR Inc v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28 | When subordinate legislation can illuminate statutory meaning | Used to reject reliance on 1989 byelaws as interpretative aid |
| London Passenger Transport Board v Moscrop [1942] AC 332 | Need to join parties representing affected public before declaratory relief | Applied in discussion of procedural irregularity |
| Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435 | Court’s jurisdiction to declare public rights only with proper parties | Cited to criticise first-instance declaration without Attorney General |
| Seaport Investments Ltd v Cameron [1999] NIQB 1943 | Attorney General’s joinder to bind the public | Illustrative of correct procedure absent here |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Simms (duplicate) | See above | See above |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Textual analysis. The Court found that, in ordinary language, camping is “open-air recreation.” Section 10(1) gives a positive right of access for such recreation provided access is gained “on foot or on horseback.” Those words describe mode of entry, not the nature of the activity.
2. Statutory context. The 1985 Act operates within the framework of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which repeatedly uses the same phrase “open-air recreation” without limitation. Cross-referencing in section 10(3) reinforces that Parliament intended identical breadth.
3. Legislative structure. Both the 1949 and 1985 Acts adopt a model of public regulation—through byelaws, notices and wardens—rather than private enforcement by trespass. Activities are governed by publicly visible rules; absent a specific prohibition, they are permitted.
4. Other interpretative aids. Earlier statutes such as the Law of Property Act 1925 explicitly excluded camping when Parliament wished to do so, implying that camping otherwise falls within recreational access. Historical reports and 1989 byelaws were discounted as unreliable guides; Hansard was inadmissible because the statutory language was unambiguous.
5. Principle of legality. While the right of access limits landowners’ private-law remedies, section 10(1) is clear and specific. Therefore the principle of legality does not mandate a narrower reading.
6. Procedural observations. The Court noted that declaratory relief affecting the public should ordinarily include the Attorney General as a defendant. Although this did not alter the outcome, it highlighted a procedural flaw at first instance.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED. The Court upheld the Court of Appeal and ruled that section 10(1) confers a public right to camp on Dartmoor Commons, subject to compliance with valid byelaws and regulations.
Immediate effect: landowners cannot sue in trespass solely because members of the public pitch tents after entering on foot or horseback, provided statutory conditions are met. Broader implications: the judgment clarifies the wide scope of “open-air recreation” in access legislation and confirms the limited circumstances in which parliamentary materials may be used to narrow clear statutory rights.
Alert