Dartmoor Commons Grazing Case - Wild Justice Wins One Ground

Inner Temple Library Current Awareness

Filed March 19th, 2026

Detected March 20th, 2026

Summary

The High Court ruled in favor of environmental group Wild Justice on one of eight grounds in its case against the Dartmoor Commoners' Council regarding livestock grazing. The court found the council failed in its duty to properly assess the number of animals that could be grazed while preserving the commons' ecological value.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The High Court, in a decision dated March 19, 2026, ruled that the Dartmoor Commoners' Council failed to properly assess the number of livestock that could be grazed on the Dartmoor Commons, thereby breaching its statutory duty under the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985. Environmental group Wild Justice succeeded on this specific ground, arguing that the council's reliance on local estimates was insufficient for proper management and preservation of the commons' flora, fauna, and ecological value.

This ruling signifies a substantive shift in the oversight of grazing practices on Dartmoor. While the council has statutory responsibilities to regulate grazing and promote proper livestock husbandry, this judgment clarifies that these duties require a more rigorous assessment of animal numbers in relation to environmental preservation. Regulated entities, specifically commoners and the council, must ensure that future grazing assessments are meaningful and consider ecological impacts. Failure to comply with these enhanced assessment requirements could lead to further legal challenges and potential enforcement actions.

What to do next

Review Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 duties regarding livestock grazing assessments
Ensure grazing assessments consider flora, fauna, and ecological value
Update internal policies and procedures for livestock husbandry standards

Source document (simplified)

Campaign group succeeds on single ground in battle over grazing on Dartmoor Commons

Details

19.Mar.2026

Environmental campaign group Wild Justice has won on one of eight grounds in a High Court case it brought against the Dartmoor Commoners' Council about livestock grazing permitted in the national park.

The court found the commoners’ council could not rely on local people’s estimates of animal numbers to arrive at firm conclusions on this and so had failed to fulfil its duties.

Mr Justice Mould heard that the council has statutory responsibilities under Part III of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 Act for regulating the Dartmoor Commons and under the same Act must maintain these and promote proper standards of livestock husbandry, including by assessment of the number of animals which can properly be grazed.

The Act requires the council to make regulations to ensure that the commons are not overstocked and so may fix the numbers of livestock which a commoner may graze on the commons.

Wild Justice argued that over-grazing was causing damage to wildlife and habitats and said the council had neglected to properly manage livestock.

Its successful ground of challenge concerned whether the council was in breach of its duty by failing to make any meaningful assessment of the number of animals which may properly be grazed on the commons while having regard to the preservation of the commons’ flora, fauna and ecological value.

Mould J said he accepted Wild Justice’s submission that assessment of the number of animals which can be grazed is fundamental to the council's discharge of its functions under the 1985 Act and that a core function was to regulate common rights to maintain the commons and promote livestock husbandry through periodic assessments to reach a meaningful and evidence-based judgment on the need to control overstocking and achieve the required maintenance.

The judge said that while the council had significant discretion over how it should achieve these goals, it was “clear that the control of stock numbers and the avoidance of overstocking is central to the achievement of those purposes”.

He said: “Assessment of the number of animals that may properly be grazed on the commons at any given time necessarily implies both quantitative and qualitative analysis.

“The question for the [council] is whether stocking levels exceed the capacity of the commons properly to accommodate them.”

This meant the council had to interrogate the numbers of livestock which commoners are entitled to graze on the commons and factors that affected this.

But he noted the commoners' council had said it “purported to rely upon individual members' own knowledge and experience of stocking numbers on the commons as a sufficient basis for meaningful assessment of the number of animals which may properly be grazed on the commons from time to time.

“I was offered no explanation as to how such essentially anecdotal evidence could sensibly found a determination by the [council] that the commons were overstocked, at sustainable stock levels or indeed understocked.

"In my judgment, that is not a legally sufficient basis for meaningful assessment by a regulatory body in support of performance of its core statutory functions. The [council] is a regulatory body performing public law duties. To rely solely on anecdotal information…is insufficient to fulfil the defendant's duty of reasonable inquiry.”

Mark Smulian

Must read

Service charge recovery and the Building Safety Act 2022

Zoe McGovern, Sian Gibbon and Caroline Frampton set out what local authorities need to consider when it comes to the Building Safety Act 2022 and service charge recovery. Service charge recovery and the Building Safety Act 2022