A retired forestry worker and his wife have won a legal battle to stop horse-riders using a track on his land.

Graham and Margot Tuley were ordered by Highland Council to remove a barrier across the route at their land at Feddonhill Wood, in Fortrose on the Black Isle. A sheriff confirmed the order, but now the couple have won their appeal against the ruling.

In an important legal decision that could have an effect on future application of Scottish access law, three judges in the Court of Session in Edinburgh allowed the couple’s appeal on the grounds that they could take pre-emptive action to prevent access that was not responsible.

Unlike previous access battles in which landowners attempted to exclude the public from their land, the Tuleys actively encouraged walkers to use the wood, which they bought from Mr Tuley’s former employer the Forestry Commission in 1992. They also set up a mountain bikers’ route in the wood.

The Tuleys’ contention was that horse-riders using the route referred to in court as the ‘red track’ would damage the terrain and make it difficult to use by walkers. Putting up the barrier would protect the route and allow responsible access by walkers. They employed a soil expert to strengthen their case.

A nearby riding school and livery stable objected to the barriers, as did a neighbour who occasionally rode his horse through the wood.

The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 allows the public access to most land in Scotland, subject to rights being exercised responsibly. The couple’s successful argument was that horse riders were not acting responsibly in using the red track because the damage caused would impede or prevent other access users.

Lords Eassie, Hardie and Mackay of Drumadoon agreed and Sheriff Alasdair MacFadyen’s decision that padlocks on the barriers be removed or a 1.5m gap left was overruled.

In the written decision, Lord Eassie said: “In our view it makes little sense to say that the landowner must allow a mode of access which will be likely to prove productive of damage to the land and suffer that damage without being able to take preventative steps.

“It follows, in our view, that the pursuers [Mr and Mrs Tuley] were acting responsibly in preventing equestrian access (and also, incidentally, motorised access by motorcycles or ‘quad bikes’) to the northern sector which they intended for the enjoyment of their pedestrian visitors.

“We would add the observation that, on any broad view of matters, what the pursuers were doing appears to be a responsible exercise of land management.”

Highland Council and the British Horse Society both expressed disappointment with the ruling.