Dartmoor Estate – a dispute about land rights
Dartmoor National Park was designated as a national park in 1951, covering a 368-square-mile area that features “commons” – open access areas of unenclosed, yet are privately-owned moorland.
Until successfully challenged in the High Court, Dartmoor was the only place in England where camping without landowner permission was (seemingly) permitted in law under Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 (“DCA 1985”) – section 10(1) DCA 1985 states:
…the public shall have a right of access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation…”
The case centred upon whether the right of public access to Dartmoor on foot or on horseback to participate in “open-air recreation” extends to wild camping.
It demonstrates the role of the courts, in the event of dispute, to interpret legislation that has been made by Parliament.
Background to the dispute
The Appellants became Dartmoor’s sixth-largest landowner in 2011 after purchasing the 4,000-acre Blachford Estate in part to provide activities such as pheasant shoots, deerstalking and holiday rentals.
In August 2022, the Appellants bought a claim against the Dartmoor National Park Authority (“DNPA”), seeking a declaration that the public were not entitled to camp without permission, arguing that wild campers had affected conservation efforts, raising concerns around the “damage that wild camping can cause and, in particular about the significant risk of fire associated with it”.
In January 2023, the High Court ruled that the 1985 Act did not confer a right on the public to pitch tents overnight on the Dartmoor commons without landowners’ permission.
This ruling attracted criticism from campaigners, with concerns that it was too prescriptive and brought into question what other recreational activities (such as fishing or bird watching) may be subject to challenge if the right of access was restricted purely to walking and horse-riding. Indeed, as was argued in the Supreme Court by the Appellants’ legal representatives, even having a picnic without permission would constitute trespass.
Supreme Court ruling
The Court of Appeal disagreed with the High Court, overturning the decision, before the Appellants were granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court set out the well-established approach to statutory interpretation: to ascertain the meaning of the words used in a statute in light of their context and the purpose of the statutory provision.
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, determining that the law would make “no sense” if the right of recreation given to the public was “limited in the manner contended for” by the Appellants, and that the concept of “open-air recreation” should be construed widely and is stated “without qualification as to the form which it should take. It is not confined to recreation taken by means of walking or riding”.
In addition, the Court ruled that whilst there are “…restrictions on the landowners’ property rights, there is in return DNPA’s power to prevent, and enforce against, problematic camping by virtue of its ability to make and enforce bylaws and to publish notices”. Therefore, there is existing legislation which means that public regulation of the use of the commons is more effective at protecting the land than by making wild camping unlawful and leaving it to private individuals to challenge such use themselves by bringing claims in private law.
Additional thoughts
This case shows that seemingly well-established law, which appears clear on its face, is subject to challenge, requiring clarification from the Supreme Court, with different decisions taken in the lower courts. At a basic level, it demonstrates the inherent uncertainty of litigation and the potential for court cases to evolve into multi-year, heavily contested disputes in the appellate courts.
The case has sparked widespread interest, with nuanced implications for public access and land rights within the confines of Dartmoor (a cherished national park), yet like many land disputes it has promoted significant debate about where the lines should be drawn between rights of public enjoyment and private ownership. The ruling does not carry wider implications for private land more generally.
Legal practitioners often face difficult technical questions about who should be brought into the litigation as a defendant so that the remedies sought apply to the correct parties. While it has not made any difference to the outcome of this case, the Supreme Court also ruled that the Attorney General (who typically represents the public) should have been joined as a defendant in circumstances where the Appellants had sought a declaration that DCA 1985 did not grant the public a right to camp.
For more information on how our expert team can assist you in your dispute click here, or alternatively contact Sam and Eugenia.
Sources
Darwall and another (Appellants) v Dartmoor National Park Authority (Respondent) UKSC/2023/0126
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/21/wild-camping-on-dartmoor-is-legal-supreme-court-rules