R v Oxfordshire CC, ex parte Sunningwell PC [2000] 1 AC 335; [1999] 3 All ER 385; [1999] 3 WLR 160; [1999] LGR 651; 79 P & CR 199; [1999] 2 EGLR 94; [1999] 29 LS Gaz R 29; [1999] NLJR 1038; [1999] 31 EG 85; [1999] EGCS 91
USERS OF LAND AS OF RIGHT, PRESCRIPTION, EXCLUSIVE ENJOYMENT OF LAND, VILLAGE GREEN, NEC VI, NEC CLAM, NEC PRECARIO
Facts
A glebe in Sunningwell, Oxfordshire, was an open space, used by the local people for outdoor activities. In 1978, it was transferred to the Oxford Dioscesan Board of Finance. In 1994, the Board obtained a planning permission to built two houses on the northern boundary of the glebe. The local people opposed this. As a result, Sunningwell Parish Council (SPC) applied to Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) to register the glebe as village green under s. 13 Commons Registration Act 1965, so that the proposed development is prevented under s. 29 Commons Act 1876.
The SPC relied on the definition of a village green under s. 22(1)(b) Commons Registration Act 1965 – land which the inhabitants of any locality have used for sports and pastimes for not less than 20 years. The OCC rejected the SPC’s application. The OCC relied on the decision in R v SuffolkCounty Council, ex p Steed (1996) 75 P & CR 102, in which it was held that user of land ‘as of right’ meant that the right had to be exercised in the belief that it was enjoyed only by the inhabitants of the local village. All of the local Sunningwell people said that they thought they had the right to use the glebe, but it was not confined to them exclusively.
Issue
Did the use of the glebe ‘as of right’ have to have been carried out in the belief that the inhabitants of Sunningwell had the right to enjoy it to the exclusion of all other people?
Held
The decision was in favour of SPC.
(1) R v Suffolk County Council, ex p Steed (1996) 75 P & CR 102 was overruled. The users of land cannot be discounted merely because many of them were subjectively indifferent to the existence of the right over a period of time. The common law doctrine of nec vi, nec clam, nec precario was applied.
(2) Therefore, OCC could not refuse the SPC application on grounds that the villagers did not believe that the right to use the glebe was confined to them only.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case note accurately describes the decision in R v Oxfordshire CC, ex parte Sunningwell PC [2000] 1 AC 335 and the legal principles established by the House of Lords. However, readers should be aware of significant subsequent legislative developments that affect the practical context of this decision.
The Commons Registration Act 1965, under which the application in this case was made, has been largely superseded by the Commons Act 2006. The 2006 Act reformed the registration of town and village greens and introduced a new statutory definition and registration framework. The relevant provisions of the 2006 Act are now the primary legislative basis for village green registration applications in England and Wales, replacing the 1965 Act’s provisions discussed in this case.
Further, the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 introduced restrictions on village green registration applications where land is subject to certain planning processes, and the Infrastructure Act 2015 made further amendments affecting the trigger dates for applications. These reforms have materially altered the procedural landscape since this case was decided.
The core legal principle affirmed in Sunningwell — that use ‘as of right’ is assessed objectively by reference to the nec vi, nec clam, nec precario formula and does not require subjective belief in an exclusive right — remains good law and has been consistently applied in subsequent cases, including by the Supreme Court in R (Lewis) v Redcar and Cleveland BC [2010] UKSC 11. The overruling of ex parte Steed on the exclusivity point is therefore still authoritative.
