Mace v Philcox; 25 Jan 1864

References: [1864] EngR 170, (1864) 15 CB NS 600, (1864) 143 ER 920
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Erle CJ, Williams J
Ratio 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’
This case cites:

  • Cited – Blundell -v- Catterall ((1821) 5 B&ALD 268, Commonlii, [1821] EngR 579, (1821) 5 B & A 268, (1821) 106 ER 1190 (B))
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 20-Apr-16
Ref: 281884