Signs can be an effective tool in property disputes to assert the rights of landowners. That said, this is not an absolute rule, and recent cases have highlighted how inadequate signage can lead to third parties acquiring rights over land. A common example is a “right of way” - a legal right that allows someone who does not own a piece of land to pass over it for a specific purpose. These rights can have significant implications for landowners - potentially lowering the value of the land and complicating development.
What are prescriptive easements?
One common example of third-party rights over land is prescriptive easements: a form of easement created by 20 years of uninterrupted use of land.
As the House of Lords explained in Dalton v Angus (1881) 6 App Cas 740, use which is “nec vi, nec clam, nec precario” (without force, secrecy, or permission) will, after long enjoyment, give rise to a prescriptive easement. The Court of Appeal in Mills v Silver [1991] Ch 271 confirmed that this principle applies to modern land use, stressing that it is not enough for an owner to be privately resentful – there must be outward objection.
This is important because it means that rights can be acquired without any express grant by the landowner, purely through their failure to object. In effect, the law penalises “sleeping owners” and rewards long, unchallenged use by recognising it as a legal right.
The effect of signage
One way that landowners can demonstrate this is through signage. For example, in Nicholson v Hale [2024] UKUT 153 (LC), the Tribunal held: “Continuous presence of legible signs may be sufficient to prevent use being as of right, for the purposes of a claim based on prescription.” As such, a sign that read “This staircase and forecourt is private property. No public right of way” was deemed sufficiently clear to prevent the creation of an easement.
The courts have set out clear guidance on how signage should be understood in property disputes. In the Warneford Meadow case (R (Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust) v Oxfordshire CC [2010] EWHC 530 (Admin)), His Honour Judge Waksman QC distilled the following principles:
Message to the user – the core question is what the notice would convey to a reasonable user: would they know the landowner objected to their use?
Evidence of reaction – how actual users responded to the sign can be relevant to whether it conveyed objection effectively.
Context matters – signs must be assessed in their setting; wording and placement both affect their impact.
Common-sense reading – notices are to be interpreted in a practical, everyday way, not with technical or legalistic precision.
Proportionality – landowners are not required to fence off land or sue trespassers; clear signage alone may suffice, provided it reasonably contests the use.
Objective test – the focus is on what a reasonable user would take from the notice, not what the owner subjectively intended.
Limited relevance of intent – the owner’s intention is generally irrelevant, unless used to rebut an argument that the notice’s meaning is unrealistic or implausible.
Insufficient signage
In Winterburn v Bennett [2016] EWCA Civ 482, a sign which read “Private car park. For the use of Club patrons only” defeated claims to a vehicular easement; however, it was deemed insufficient to block a claim for pedestrian access. Moreover, in Sagier v Kaur [2024] UKUT 217 (LC) a “no public right of way” sign erected on a private road failed to prevent the creation of an easement – as it was aimed towards members of the general public and not towards homeowners on the same private road, it was deemed to be ambiguous.
These cases highlight that “boilerplate” terms will not always convey to a reasonable user that the landowner objects to their use, and that each sign must be assessed in its individual context. Consequently, signs should not be relied upon uncritically – where signage is present, and unauthorised use continues, landowners should consider alternative methods.
