Give Me A Sign! Access, easements, and the effect of signs in property disputes

From “No Ball Games” to “Ancient Lights”,  the meaning and legal effect of signs is a very British species of property dispute. Two recent Upper Tribunal (“UT”) decisions on rights of way (Sagier v Kaur [2024] and Nicholson v Hale [2024]) are a valuable reminder of key principles regarding signage and the acquisition of rights over land by long use.

More of the typically humdrum details from the two neighbourly disputes are set out below, and some conclusions to draw are:

• A right of way is an easement that can be acquired by use of a route for 20 years or more by a neighbouring property owner; however
• a well created sign can make the use contentious. This will prevent the use of a way being  ‘without force’, which is a requirement to establish an easement, and therefore can defeat a claim to a right by long use; but
• to do so, a sign should be suitably worded, and suitably located. It should be clear, targeted, visible and unambiguous; and
• vaguely worded and/or poorly placed signs are unlikely to have any legal effect; and
• more generally, signage is at best part of a broader strategy to manage access to land, and prevent adverse rights arising. It is no substitute for vigilantly monitoring land and legal rights to prevent encroachment and the acquisition of adverse rights. 

Sagier v Kaur - Ambiguity will prevent a sign being effective

In Sagier v Kaur, a dispute arose after Mrs Kaur (the respondent) erected a series of “increasingly formidable barriers” preventing pedestrian access over a private road by one of her neighbours on the private road. Unfortunately, “but entirely predictably”  this “caused conflict between neighbours [of houses on the road]”. The applicant (Mr Sagier) claimed a right of way over the private road based on continuous use for over 20 years dating back to 1999. Mrs Kaur relied on a number of signs erected from 2000, and for some years afterwards, stating “No Public Right of Way” to argue that the use was contentious and therefore had not crystalised into a right. 

The UT’s decision hinged on the effect of the signage. The UT overruled the First Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) and found that the pedestrian use of the road was not “with force”, despite the historic presence of the signs. Therefore the applicant could establish a right of way.  It found that the signs were ambiguous, and directed at the general public rather than at other owners of houses on the private road. The judge said “it was more likely that they [(owners of houses on the road)] would have understood that they and their neighbours were fellow residents of the private road, and not the public whose presence was objected to”. The signs therefore failed to prevent a right of way arising.

Nicholson v Hale - Clarity and visibility is key

By contrast, in the slightly earlier case of Nicholson v Hale (which was cited in Sagier v Kaur), the respondent’s claim for a right of way over a private staircase was defeated by a sign. 

In the case, the appellants had erected a sign which said: “This staircase and forecourt is private property. No public right of way.” Despite that sign, the respondents sought to establish a right of way by long use.

The UT overruled the FTT, and held that the statement in the sign that the staircase was “private property” would convey to any reader of the sign that access was only for the landowner and those authorised by the owner.  The message was reinforced by the statement that there was no public right of way.  The sign in this case was therefore fuller, and conceptually different to the sign in Sagier v Kaur, if imperfect.

The UT found that the sign was visible and legible, and it was sufficient to render any use contentious. Therefore a right of way could not be established.

Other observations

• These two cases related to pedestrian rights of way, rather than other easements (such as parking, access for repair, or rights of light).
• The effect of signage will always be heavily dependent on the type of right claimed and, as these two cases show, the wording and location and duration of the sign.
• However charming they appear, signs stating “Ancient lights” have been of limited effect in historic cases. Less still, signs stating “no ball games”, which can be as miserly as they are ineffective.
• Signs are not always in place to prevent rights arising, and may be intended to have another effect. For example, under a legal obligation in an agreement, to mark boundaries, or for statutory reasons. They might even be art, with London street signs, such as the Abbey Road sign, selling at auction for tens of thousands of pounds!