The ‘sea-beach or foreshore throughout the whole length of the borough of Hastings, including the locus in quo’ had been used ‘from time immemorial’ by the public ‘as a place of public resort’, subject only to the corporation’s statutory powers to regulate the use by byelaws.
Held: The powers conferred upon locaal commissioners or local boards of health under the 10 CYL 11 Vict. cc. 34, 39, or under any special act, for regulating the mode of bathing on the seashore, and licensing bathing-machines there, do not warrant the licensees of such machines iri placing them or any part of the foreshore which is private property
Erle CJ was apparently unenthusiastic about the majority view in Blundell, saying ‘I am desirous of guarding my judgment so as not to restrict the valuable usage or right of Her Majesty’s subjects to resort to the sea-shore for bathing purposes’
Erle CJ, Williams J
[1864] EngR 170, (1864) 15 CB NS 600, (1864) 143 ER 920
Commonlii
Citing:
Cited – Blundell v Catterall 7-Nov-1821
The defendant used a beach ‘between the high-water mark and the low-water mark of the River Mersey’ at Great Crosby in Lancashire for the purpose of providing bathing facilities (including bathing machines and carriages for members of the public who . .
Cited by:
Cited – Newhaven Port and Properties Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v East Sussex County Council and Another SC 25-Feb-2015
The court was asked: ‘whether East Sussex County Council . . was wrong in law to decide to register an area . . known as West Beach at Newhaven . . as a village green pursuant to the provisions of the Commons Act 2006. The points of principle raised . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Leading Case
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.281884
