Darwall v Dartmoor National Park Authority [2025] UKSC 20 (21 May 2025)

Landowners sought a declaration that section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 does not grant the public a right to camp on Dartmoor Commons. The Supreme Court held that 'open-air recreation' includes wild camping, and the words 'on foot and on horseback' describe the means of access, not a limitation on recreational activities. Appeal dismissed.

Facts

The appellants, Mr and Mrs Darwall, were farmers and landowners who owned land at Blachford Manor on Dartmoor, including Stall Moor, an area on the Dartmoor Commons. They were concerned about potential harm from wild camping on the Commons near their land. They brought proceedings against the Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA) seeking a declaration that section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 does not grant the public a right to camp on the Commons.

Section 10(1) provides that the public shall have a right of access to the Commons ‘on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation’. The Chancellor of the High Court granted the declaration sought by the appellants. The Court of Appeal allowed DNPA’s appeal, holding that the words of section 10(1) are clear and that open-air recreation includes wild camping.

Issues

Principal Issue

Whether section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 confers on the public a right to pitch tents or otherwise make camp overnight on the Dartmoor Commons.

Subsidiary Issues

Whether the words ‘on foot and on horseback’ qualify the forms of open-air recreation permitted, or merely describe the means of gaining access to the Commons.

Whether the principle of legality affects the interpretation of section 10(1).

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. Lord Sales and Lord Stephens, with whom Lord Reed, Lady Rose and Lady Simler agreed, delivered the judgment.

Statutory Interpretation

The Court held that as a matter of ordinary language, camping is a form of ‘open-air recreation’. The words ‘on foot and on horseback’ describe the means by which the public are to have a right to gain access to the Commons. They do not qualify the words which follow describing what that right is given for: ‘for the purpose of open-air recreation’.

The Court rejected the appellants’ submission that open-air recreation could only be in forms pursued by proceeding on foot or on horseback, noting it would be absurd to construe section 10(1) as not including a right to have a picnic, birdwatch, sketch the landscape, or fly a kite. The same reasoning applies to camping.

Legislative Context

The Court examined the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, noting the phrase ‘open-air recreation’ is used there in an open-ended and unqualified manner. Section 60 of the 1949 Act uses a similar formula to section 10(1), and there is good reason to interpret the phrase in the same way. The structure of the regime, including powers to make byelaws and express prohibition of certain activities in Schedule 2, indicates that the concept of ‘open-air recreation’ has its wide natural meaning.

Principle of Legality

The Court held that since the words of the 1985 Act have a clear meaning, that meaning cannot be altered by the fact that landowners’ property rights are to some extent infringed. A statute may limit the rights of property owners, and that is what has happened by granting rights of access to the public under the 1985 Act.

Procedural Observations

The Court observed that in proceedings seeking a declaration affecting public rights, the Attorney General ought to have been joined as defendant to represent the public. A declaration purporting to bind the public ought not to be granted when the Attorney General is not a party to the proceedings.

Implications

This judgment confirms that the public right of access to Dartmoor Commons for open-air recreation includes wild camping, subject to compliance with applicable byelaws and regulations. The decision clarifies that statutory provisions granting access ‘on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation’ describe the means of access rather than limiting the types of recreational activities permitted.

The case is significant for the interpretation of access rights legislation and confirms that camping falls within the ordinary meaning of ‘open-air recreation’. It also provides important guidance on proper procedure when seeking declarations affecting public rights, emphasising the need to join the Attorney General as a party.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. Section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 confers on the public a right to camp on the Dartmoor Commons as part of the right of access for open-air recreation.

Source: Darwall v Dartmoor National Park Authority [2025] UKSC 20 (21 May 2025)