The 1932 Act did not apply to public rights of navigation over a river. Vinelott J said: ‘ I do not think that any ordinary educated user of the English language would regard a right of navigation as a right of way over land . .’ The extended definition of land in the Act is apt to cover situations such as a ford or a causeway subject to flooding or perhaps to stepping-stones in a stream.
Judges:
Vinelott J
Citations:
[1990] Ch 136
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Attorney-General (ex relatione Yorkshire Derwent Trust Ltd) v Brotherton CA 1991
The river Derwent passed through land. Before steps could be taken to re-open the river to public navigation, the court had to decide what rights of way existed over it.
Held: The 1932 Act did apply, and public rights of way applied, but no . .
Cited – Attorney-General (ex relatione Yorkshire Derwent Trust Ltd) v Brotherton HL 5-Dec-1991
The appellants owned land through which flowed the river Derwent. Attempts were to be made to restore the river to navigability. The appellants denied that any public rights existed over the river.
Held: The 1932 Act could only give rise to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.214603