[2024] UKUT 217 (LC)

It is clear from the transcript of the proceedings that the confrontation between Mr Sagier and Mrs Kaur’s late husband was recalled by those who heard it as having taken place at the end of September 2020, and after the picket fence had been erected in the gap used by Mr Sagier, his predecessor Mrs Hewitt, and their neighbours for more than the previous 20 years. That was what Mr Sagier said and how it was put to the Judge by Ms Newman in her closing submissions. Ms Newman did invite the Judge to accept that there had been many other such incidents, but he was not prepared to do so.

On the basis that the single protest found to have been directed by Mrs Kaur’s late husband to Mr Sagier occurred after the period of use relied on, it cannot be relevant to the acquisition of rights either under the Act or on the assumption of a lost modern grant. I therefore accept Mr Buckpitt’s submission on the second ground of appeal.

Whether these conclusions in Mr Sagier’s favour on the first and second issues make any difference to the outcome of the proceedings depends on the final issue which is concerned with the effect of the signs which the Judge found had been erected.