Ramblers have won a legal victory in their bid to get a footpath cleared of obstructions put up by a firm linked to Nicholas Van Hoogstraten.

Judges told the council to think again after it proposed to divert the path instead of forcing the landowner to clear it.

The land over which the path runs belongs to Rarebargain Ltd, now in liquidation. Property tycoon Hoogstraten, who is serving a prison sentence for manslaughter, had an interest in the company and his part-built palatial house stands on nearby land.

Today the Court of Appeal in London allowed a challenge by ramblers' champion Kate Ashbrook and quashed the council's decision to submit its diversion order to the Environment Secretary for confirmation.

The issue was sent back to the council for reconsideration in the light of the judges' ruling.

Miss Ashbrook, who led the campaign to re-open the 140-year-old right of way known as Framfield 9 near Uckfield, said afterwards: "This is a victory for fighters against footpath obstructions through the length and breadth of the country, not just a humiliation for East Sussex County Council."

As general secretary of the Open Spaces Society and chairman of the Ramblers' Association, Miss Ashbrook had accused the council of a "perverse and unsustainable" failure to force the landowner to reopen the path, which has been closed for more than a decade.

In the past, Hoogstraten has branded ramblers "scum of the earth" and "the great unwashed". The court heard that Rarebargain had been prosecuted four times in two years.

Lewes Magistrates had imposed fines totalling £86,350, plus £6,900 costs, and ordered the removal of obstructions including a barn, a locked gate, a barbed wire fence and a line of industrial refrigerators.

The fines were never paid and Rarebargain put forward diversion proposals which were taken up by the council.

The council said removal of the barn was not "reasonably achievable" and that without its removal there was little point in clearing the other obstructions.

Lady Justice Arden said it was indefensible for a landowner to take the law into his own hands and deliberately block a footpath rather than apply through the proper channels for a diversion order.

Miss Ashbrook, who was awarded costs against the authority, said later that, in deciding to "appease" the landowner, the council had adopted "the timorous line too often taken by highway authorities when an obstruction looks difficult".