The case resulted from a typical neighbour dispute involving a private road on a housing development. The private road was a collection of private driveways joined together used by pedestrians and owners of the houses on the road as a shortcut. Some of the homeowners grew increasingly frustrated with people crossing their driveways. They used self-help measures, including installing a low timber barrier below knee height, various signs saying 'no public right of way' and eventually, a full height barrier.

One of the homeowners who frequently used these driveways as a crossing subsequently applied for a prescriptive easement, on the basis they had been using the right of way for in excess of the required 20 years, as of right. Initially, they were unsuccessful, with the first-tier tribunal siding with the opposing homeowners, finding that the wording of the sign (combined with at least one oral protest) was sufficient to make use of the roadway contentious, defeating the claim for a prescriptive right.

On appeal the upper tribunal examined whether the signs posted by the homeowners were 'suitably worded' to convey objection to users, thereby preventing a prescriptive easement from arising. The court reviewed the context in which the sign was displayed and held that to effectively bar a claim for a right of way, a sign must be unambiguous and clear to all potential users. The tribunal found that the wording prohibiting the use of the road as a 'public' right of way did not make the use by the neighbouring owners of the private road contentious. A reasonable user of the private road who occupied a neighbouring house on the same estate would not have understood that their use of the land was prohibited by the sign which was clearly directed to the 'public.' Therefore, the sign did not serve as an 'unmistakable protest' to prevent a prescriptive easement from arising: the ambiguity was too much.

This case highlights, once again, the importance of avoiding ambiguity when attempting to prevent the establishment of prescriptive rights, particularly when contrasted with the decision in Nicholson and Anor v Hale and Anor. In that case, the court found a sign which referred to there being no 'public right of way' was sufficient to defeat a prescriptive easement claim by a neighbour. These decisions reinforce that, as with any other form of legal drafting, meticulous consideration must be given to the wording of signage and most importantly that the context will be key. The likelihood of success is very much dependent on the facts and evidence.