‘This interesting case concerns a problem endemic to the manner of regulating water bodies under the Water Framework Directive and the regulations passed under it.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th December 2023
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The government and environment agency failed in their duty to restore and protect waterways from pollution, the high court has ruled in a significant case that could force an overhaul of the government’s plans.’
The Guardian, 20th November 2023
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A judicial review application has been made against Powys County Council over its decision to grant planning permission for the expansion of a poultry farm that is in the catchment area of a Special Area of Conservation.’
Local Government Lawyer, 10th May 2022
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The government agency charged with protecting the marine environment has dropped its case against Greenpeace over a protest intended to obstruct destructive fishing practices in UK coastal conservation areas.’
The Guardian, 7th February 2022
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Court of Appeal has gone back to a Roman legal scholar from AD 161 to help determine who owned fish in a lake in Lancashire after it was sold.’
Litigation Futures, 18th June 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Fisheries Bill 2020, part of the government’s core legislative program on post-Brexit environmental policy, is currently in the House of Lords at committee stage, and is expected to receive royal assent in the coming months (although exactly when is subject to how successfully the House of Lords can adapt to meeting via Microsoft Teams). It would establish Britain’s departure from the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) on January 1st 2021, and sets out how fishing rights would work post transition period and CFP.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 21st April 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A shellfish gatherer from Dorset has narrowly escaped being jailed after being caught illegally selling clams to wholesalers who supply high-end restaurants.’
The Guardian, 31st March 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘140-year-old law that prevents river fishing for three months a year could be scrapped following a Government review.’
Daily Telegraph, 6th March 2018
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The Environment Agency (EA) must compensate a fisherman for the “severe and disproportionate” effect of conditions imposed on his fishing license limiting the number of fish he can catch in one year, the UK Supreme Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 16th February 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A fisherman who had to limit the number of salmon he was allowed to catch must be compensated, a court has ruled.’
BBC News, 14th February 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In R (on the application of Bancoult (No 2)) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2016] UKSC 35, the Supreme Court last week dismissed the attempt to set aside the House of Lord’s controversial 2008 decision in R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61. The challenge was grounded in the disclosure of documents in the parallel proceedings of Bancoult No 3 relating to the reliability of a feasibility study into the long term viability of settlement in Chagos Islands.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th July 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Chagos islanders, forcibly removed from their homes in 1971, have lost a legal challenge at the supreme court that could have speeded up their return.’
The Guardian, 29th June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘An interesting Court of Appeal decision concerning the science of migratory salmon, and the circumstances in which compensation will be granted when an interference with Article 1 Protocol 1 is found.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd June 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Chetwynd and another v Tunmore and another: [2016] EWHC 156 (QB)
‘The claimants alleged that the excavation of lakes by the defendants on the defendants’ land, and the abstraction of underground water as a result, had adversely affected the claimants’ fishery, in particular the water levels in the ponds therein. They issued a claim against the defendants, inter alia, under section 48A of the Water Resources Act 1991, seeking damages for the loss of fish from the ponds, the loss of income from the fishery, the costs of remediating the ponds, expenses incurred and for loss of amenity. The defendants denied liability on the basis that, under section 48A, they could only be liable for loss or damage caused by the abstraction which could reasonably have been foreseen by them and that, in any event, the claimants had failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendants’ abstraction of water by the excavation of the lakes was the effective cause of the claimants’ alleged loss or damage.’
WLR Daily, 4th February 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘An estate adjoining the foreshore on the east side of the Wash owned a private fishery with an exclusive right to take shellfish over part of the foreshore. In 1970 the estate granted a lease of that exclusive right to the claimant. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendants alleging that they had been fishing for cockles in areas of foreshore which were part of the private fishery of which he was the lessee. The defendants accepted that a private fishery had been established by prescription but disputed its extent. In particular, they contended that it did not extend to large sandbanks which had been detached from the foreshore until the channels separating them had silted up; that such sandbanks were not subject to the doctrine of accretion, properly understood; and that, even if they were, it would not follow that the fishery rights had increased commensurately since that would have required a Crown grant and the power of the Crown to make such a grant had been removed by Magna Carta. The judge, however, held that the terms of the grant presumed as a result of the past prescriptive activities was a grant before 1189 of a fishery extending over the whole of the foreshore as it varied from time to time, and accordingly included the sandbanks; that on that basis, the defendants were liable in damages; and that the most practical of the various alternative lines put forward as the defined seaward boundary of the fishery was the mean low water mark of spring tides, rather than extreme low water as contended for by the claimant. The defendants appealed and the claimant cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants’ appeal and held that as conditions changed and more or less of the seabed was exposed at low water, the area of the private fishery would expand or shrink, and held, allowing the claimant’s cross-appeal in part, that the fishery extended in law as far as lowest astronomical tide, which was the lowest point to which the tide fell as a result of normal astronomical forces.’
WLR Daily, 13th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Prince of Wales’s private estate has won an appeal against a ruling that would have forced it to open up its dealings to greater public scrutiny.’
BBC News, 4th April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Companies can find themselves the subject of protests which cause costly damage, but can they sue protesters? The Supreme Court has laid out some of the logic it would use to rule on a claim, though it did not find a charity liable in this case.’
OUT-LAW.com, 9th March 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A presumed lost grant from the Crown prior to 1189 of a right of private fishery was to be understood as extending to all such part of the seabed as might from time to time be exposed at low water.’
WLR Daily, 19th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A leaked diplomatic cable published on the internet by a third party did not violate the archive and documents of the diplomatic mission which sent the cable since it had already been disclosed to the world by a third party. On that narrow ground it was admissible as evidence in court. However, even if the evidence in question had been admitted, it would not have led to a different decision and therefore was not a ground for allowing the appeal.’
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024