The defendant disputed the right of the plaintiff to use the canal constructed across his land. After he had been ordered to allow the boats to pass, the defendant brought 15 actions in trespass. The company now sought an injunction to restrain those actions. The defendant had also challenged the validity of the existing orders. … Continue reading The Grand Junction Canal Company v Dimes: 2 Jun 1849
The court explained the Act: ‘The canal having been made under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, the rights of the plaintiffs are derived entirely from that Act. This, like many other cases, is a bargain between a company of adventurers and the public, the terms of which are expressed in the statute; and … Continue reading Proprietors of the Stourbridge Canal v Wheeley: 1831
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The … Continue reading Locabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd: CA 17 Nov 1999
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, owned a substantial shareholding in the defendant canal which was an incorporated body. He sat on appeal from the Vice-Chancellor, whose judgment in favour of the company he affirmed. There was an appeal on the grounds that the Lord Chancellor was disqualified. Held: After consultation, Lord Cottenham was disqualified from … Continue reading Dimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal and others: HL 26 Jun 1852
References: [1849] EngR 576, (1849) 12 Beav 63, (1849) 50 ER 984 Links: Commonlii Ratio:In a suit in which an incorporated company were Plaintiffs, a decree was pronounced by the Vice-Chancellor for England, and was affirmed, on appeal, by the Lord Chancellor. It was afterwards discovered that the Lord Chancellor was a shareholder in the … Continue reading The Grand Junction Canal Company v Dimes; 1 May 1849
References: [1850] EngR 243, (1850) 2 H & Tw 92, (1850) 47 ER 1610, [1849] EngR 682, (1849) 17 Sim 38, (1849) 60 ER 1041 Links: Commonlii, Commonlii The defendant disputed the right of the plaintiff to use the canal constructed across his land. After he had been ordered to allow the boats to pass, … Continue reading The Grand Junction Canal Company v Dimes; 2 Jun 1849
References: [1846] EngR 55, (1846) 9 QB 469, (1846) 115 ER 1353, [1846] EngR 1072, (1846) 15 Sim 402, (1846) 60 ER 675 Links: Commonlii, Commonlii By a local Act of Parliament a company was incorporated and empowered to purchase certain lands ; and all persons seised, possessed of or interested in those lands were … Continue reading Dimes v The Company of Proprietors of The Grand Junction Canal; CExC 1846
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
The claimant sought the right to moor his houseboats on the Grand Union Canal, a waterway regulated by the defendant who issued licences. The claimant said that rights granted under the 1793 Act survived the new scheme. The defendant said that a public right to navigation would not include a mooring right. The claimant said … Continue reading Moore v British Waterways Board: CA 5 Feb 2010
LRA Application for first registration of land and waterway at Brentford Dock – claim by Respondents that ownership of canal by Applicant did not extend to its full width – true construction of relevant legislation – Grand Junction Canal Act 1793, ss. 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 25, 27, 28 – Transport … Continue reading British Waterways Board v James Mason, David Devere ( Rivers, Waterways and Foreshore): LRA 29 Mar 2010
The issue was whether the rights given under the section could only be exercised by owners of land on either side of the canal. Held: The Act took rights over land and was to be construed in the case of any ambiguity against its proposers. Section 79 was a proviso intended to protect the rights … Continue reading Swan Hill Developments Limited, Lloyd-Thomas etc v British Waterways Board: CA 25 Feb 1997
Prisoners were disciplined after refusing to be squat searched, saying that the procedure was humiliating and that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect them of any offence against prison discipline. The officer who had been involved in ordering the search was the one later who decided on their complaint that it was unlawful. Held: … Continue reading Al-Hasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Feb 2005
Power to call in is administrative in nature The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights to a fair hearing before … Continue reading Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture. Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher continues to exist as a remedy … Continue reading Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: HL 19 Nov 2003
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages. Held: The defendant was bound ‘sic uit suo ut non laedat alienum’. ‘The defendants, treating them as the owners … Continue reading Rylands v Fletcher: HL 1868
A petition was brought to request that a judgment of the House be set aside because the wife of one their lordships, Lord Hoffmann, was as an unpaid director of a subsidiary of Amnesty International which had in turn been involved in a campaign against the applicant, and as a party. Held: The House is … Continue reading Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2): HL 15 Jan 1999
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself. Held: When asking whether material circumstances in a case might give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, the test was whether objectively … Continue reading In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association: CA 21 Dec 2000
(Belize) The applicant complained at his removal as a justice of the Supreme Court, stating it was unconstitutional. The complaint had been decided by a member of the Bar Council which had also recommended his removal, and he said it had been decided in private. Held: It was not suggested that the chairman had any … Continue reading Meerabux v The Attorney General of Belize: PC 23 Mar 2005
The claimant appealed against rejection of judicial review of a finding that she had effectively cheated at a professional examination for the Institute. She compained that the presence of a director and the council’s vice-president of the Institute . .
