Clarity cut adrift: Human rights arguments triable in mooring cases – Henderson Chambers

Posted May 16th, 2017 in appeals, canals, human rights, news by sally

‘Judgment has been handed down by the Court of Appeal in Jones v Canal & River Trust (2017) EWCA Civ 135. The case concerned a claim brought by the Canal and River Trust (‘the C&RT’) to remove Mr Jones’ boat using its powers under the British Waterways Acts 1971 and 1983 (‘the Acts’) and for injunctive relief restraining him from mooring, navigating or securing his boat on any of its waterways. Mr Jones raised an Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights defence arguing, inter alia, that the C&RT had not carried out any or any adequate proportionality assessment. The county court at first instance struck out the Article 8 defence, a decision which the Court of Appeal has now overturned.’

Full story (PDF)

Henderson Chambers, 10th April 2017

Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk

Floating rights – Nearly Legal

Posted March 28th, 2017 in appeals, canals, disabled persons, housing, human rights, news by sally

‘This was an appeal against an order that Canal and River Trust could remove Mr Jones boat from a canal near Bradford on Avon, under its powers under s.8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 and s.13 of the British Waterways Act 1971. Mr J had advanced a defence of breach of article 8 European Convention on Human Rights.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 26th March 2017

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Canals and Article 8 – again – UK Human Rights Blog

‘In recent years, the Courts have come up with a pragmatic resolution to the clash of property and Article 8 rights which typically occur in housing cases. Where the tenant is trying to use Art.8 to fend off a possession order, because he is in breach of some term of the tenancy, then the Courts, here and in Strasbourg, have resolved the issue in the favour of the local authority, save in exceptional circumstances.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 10th March 2017

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

When is relief from forfeiture available? – Tanfield Chambers

Posted February 17th, 2017 in canals, estoppel, forfeiture, licensing, news, water by sally

‘Property analysis: Is relief from forfeiture only available to claimants with proprietary or possessory rights? Barrister Robert Bowker, of Tanfield Chambers, considers the recent High Court decision in General Motors UK v Manchester Ship Canal Company.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 26th January 2017

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Birmingham canal murder: Man guilty of body-in-suitcase killing – BBC News

Posted April 13th, 2015 in assisting offenders, canals, murder, news by sally

‘A killer who dismembered his tenant’s body before stuffing it into a suitcase which he dumped into a canal has been found guilty of murder.’

Full story

BBC News, 9th April 2015

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water plc (Canal & River Trust and others intervening); Same and another v Same (Same intervening) – WLR Daily

Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water plc (Canal & River Trust and others intervening); Same and another v Same (Same intervening) [2014] UKSC 40; [2014] WLR (D) 291

‘Under the Water Industry Act 1991 sewerage undertakers were impliedly empowered to discharge surface water and other non-pollutant water into private watercourses to which they were already discharging at the time the Act came into force, but had no right to create new outfalls into such watercourses without the agreement of their owners.’

WLR Daily, 2nd July 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd and another (Respondents) v United Utilities Water Plc (Appellant) – Supreme Court

Posted July 3rd, 2014 in appeals, canals, law reports, sewerage, Supreme Court, trespass, water companies by sally

The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd and another (Respondents) v United Utilities Water Plc (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 40 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 2nd July 2014

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Moore v British Waterways Board – WLR Daily

Posted February 21st, 2013 in appeals, canals, law reports, notification, rights of way by sally

Moore v British Waterways Board [2013] EWCA Civ 73; [2013] WLR (D) 59

“At common law a riparian owner who did not own the river bed had no right to moor vessels there permanently. However, absence of a right to moor did not necessarily mean that a vessel was moored ‘without lawful authority’ within section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983, which empowered the British Waterways Board to remove a vessel.”

WLR Daily, 14th Febraury 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Triumph for canal boat litigant in person – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted February 18th, 2013 in canals, litigants in person, news by sally

“A boat owner has won his appeal against the British Waterways Board preventing him from mooring his boats alongside his land on a tidal stretch of the Grand Canal. Although he had no common law right to permanently moor the boats, he had committed no actionable wrong in doing so, and they were therefore not moored ‘without lawful authority’ within the meaning of the British Waterways Act 1983. This judgment is an interesting and important endorsement of the principle in English law that everything is permitted except what is expressly forbidden.”

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 15th February 2013

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

The Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd and another v United Utilities Water plc – WLR daily

Posted February 11th, 2013 in appeals, canals, law reports, sewerage, statutory interpretation by sally

The Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd and another v United Utilities Water plc [2013] EWCA Civ 40; [2013] WLR (D) 50

“The implied power of sewerage undertakers to discharge the contents of sewers via their outfalls onto third party property without the owner’s consent had not passed to their successor companies under the transfer scheme entered into as part of the privatisation process implemented under the Water Act 1989.”

WLR Daily, 7th February 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

High Court quashes decision to designate developer’s land as high risk flood zone – OUT-LAW.com

Posted June 22nd, 2012 in canals, environmental protection, news, planning by tracey

“The High Court has overturned a decision by the Environment Agency to designate land along a 36 mile stretch of the Manchester Ship Canal as a high risk flood zone.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 21st June 2012

Source: www.out-law.com

The Bridgewater Canal Co Ltd v GEO Networks Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted December 2nd, 2010 in canals, compensation, construction industry, law reports, telecommunications by sally

The Bridgewater Canal Co Ltd v GEO Networks Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1348; [2010] WLR (D) 306

“On the proper construction of the Electronic Communications Code, set out in Sch 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984 as amended by the Communications Act 2003, the special regime which applied to linear obstacles differed not only from the general regime but also from the other special regimes for which the code provided. When determining, under para 13(2)(e of Sch 2), an award of compensation or consideration in respect of the right to carry out works and the loss sustained by reason of doing so in implementation of the right to install and keep, there was no reason to interpolate into the words ‘the right to carry out the works’ in para (13)(2)(e) the additional words ‘and to keep the same’. Accordingly, an operator of a communications network installing a cable through an existing duct under a canal was liable to pay to the person with control of the land compensation only for the right to execute the works and not also for the right to keep them on the relevant land as and when executed.”

WLR Daily, 1st December 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

The Bridgewater Canal Company Ltd v GEO Networks Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted March 24th, 2010 in canals, law reports, telecommunications by sally

The Bridgewater Canal Company Ltd v GEO Networks Ltd [2010] EWHC 548 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 85

“The consideration payable, pursuant to para 13(2)(e)(ii) of Sch 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984, as amended by the Communications Act 2003, by an operator of a communications network to a person with control of land for the right to carry out work undertaken pursuant to the provisions of the Electronic Communications Code, as contained in Sch 2 to the 1984, as amended, included payment to reflect not only the right to carry out the works but also for the right to retain the works on the land once the works themselves had been completed.”

WLR Daily, 22nd March 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.