The right to be on the beach again – A1P1 and retrospectivity

16 June 2013 by

Westbeach4The Queen (on the application of Newhaven Port and Properties Limited) v East Sussex County Council and Newhaven Town Council (Interested Party)  [2013] EWCA Civ 673, 276, 14 June 2013 read judgment 

This case came before the Court of Appeal earlier this year (read judgment of April 2013, and Rosalind English’s earlier post giving the background), when the landowner Port’s attempts to exclude members of the public from West Beach, Newhaven were unsuccessful. They were defeated by the beach being registered as a “village green” – improbable though that description may sound to those not versed in this arcane bit of the law. The lawfulness of this registration in turn depended on it being established that members of the public had used the beach for at least 20 years “as of right” – i.e. “without force, without stealth and without permission” – an age-old lawyers’ mantra that has mercifully been translated from the original Latin in recent times.

But the earlier hearing before the CA left over for determination one issue, the Port’s contention that they had been deprived of property rights in breach of Article 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1) of ECHR, because of a retrospective change of the law adverse to them. This is what last week’s decision is about.

The argument turned on when the 20 year period for use arose or whether it did not count. There had been previous controversy in the courts about this, and previous efforts to legislate. Various theories and solutions had been debated – was it enough to show 20 years after which, whatever happened, the right accrued? Or did one have to register the right to the “village green” within a set period after the landowner objected? In 2001 the law was changed or clarified so that public had to show 20 years continuous use. But this did not resolve the question of what could wipe out that usage or when it ceased to be continuous. This was the subject of the Commons Act 2006, which the Port said breached its A1P1 rights.

The key section is s.15 of the Commons Act 2006,. This included various criteria required for registering a village green. The relevant one is in s. 15(4):

“(4) This subsection applies (subject to subsection (5)) where—

(a) a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality, indulged as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years;

(b) they ceased to do so before the commencement of this section; and

(c) the application is made within the period of five years beginning with the cessation referred to in paragraph (b).”

Sub-section (5) then disapplied these grounds for registration when the landowner had already implemented a planning permission in respect of the land. The Port had not got this far, though the purpose of its exclusion of people from the beach was for this very reason.

Hence, there was a quid pro quo in the legislation- the public got 5 years after its use of the beach had been terminated to register its rights but not if in that period the landowner had built over it.

This made the law clear. But it also meant that in some cases rights which may have ceased to be registrable under the old law could now be registered. To that extent, the law was retrospective. Not every aspect of retrospective or retroactive law breaches A1P1. But it does require special justification.  What the court must do is to evaluate the degree of unfairness (if any) in the retrospective or retroactive effect of the legislation. In this connection retrospective or retroactive legislation which is passed in order to restore the legal position to what it was previously understood to be is less objectionable than legislation that changes the law. But even a change in the law may be justified under A1P1.

All this general law is now reasonably clear thanks to two recent Supreme Court cases,  AXA pleural plaques (see my post here with link to the judgment) and Salvesen on agricultural tenancies (post & judgment here).

The real A1P1 questions are, as ever,

(i) does the law in question serve a legitimate aim?

(ii) is it proportionate?

Legitimate aim

The aim of section 15 (4) was to give locals a longer period of grace because the threat to their continued use (some notice telling them they could only use the green by permission of the owner) was not obvious to members of the public. Contrast cases where the use as of right ceased after the 2006 Act came into force which would involve physical obstruction – and for which only a 2 year period was allowed for registration. Only a lawyer would pick up the first, but anyone would protest about the second.

The CA decided that the provision of the 5 year period was for a legitimate aim, and was consistent with the overall policy that once twenty years use as of right has been established it should be possible to get the land registered as a green.


The CA made a number of points in dismissing the Port’s case that the law had a disproportionate effect.


  • The main one was that that the Port could have avoided getting into the predicament in which he finds himself: Leeds Group plc v Leeds City Council (No 2) [2011] EWCA Civ 1447 [2012] 1 WLR 1561 at [37]. On the basis of the April 2013 CA decision,
  •  if the Port had displayed the bye-laws on the quayside or the sea wall the whole problem would have been eliminated. Anyway, all landowners had effectively been put on notice since the late 1990s that those using their land for recreational purposes may well be asserting a public right to do so if their use of the land is more than trivial or sporadic. The fact that the Port’s predicament has come about because of its own acquiescence in a long-standing state of affairs also means that the case for compensation was a particularly weak one.


The remaining points ([67]-[75] in Lewison LJ’s judgment) are detailed ones – but which demonstrate that it is far from easy to devise a law which strikes the right balance between the interests of landowners and members of the public.


This strikes me as a fairly easy decision against the A1P1 challenge to this statute. True, any provision with a dose of retrospectivity will need some measure of justification, but where there are firmly two sides to the legislative choice made, it is not difficult for the government to justify the choice it in fact made.  A1P1 certainly has teeth, as recent decisions have shown – e.g. here – but this is not one in which they were – quite rightly – bared.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: