The claimant said that the defendant did not have the powers it claimed in serving notices requiring him to remove boats from a section of the Grand Union Canal.
Held: The respondent did have the power under section 8 of the 1983 Act. As a riparian owner, but having no interest in the bed of the canal, at common law there was no positive riparian right to moor vessels permanently.
Judges:
Hildyard J
Citations:
[2012] EWHC 182 (Ch), [2012] 1 WLR 3289
Links:
Statutes:
British Waterways Act 1983, Grand Junction Canal Act 1793
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Moore v British Waterways Board ChD 12-Mar-2009
. .
See Also – Moore v British Waterways Board CA 5-Feb-2010
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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Moore v British Waterways Board CA 14-Feb-2013
The claimant resisted an attempt by the respondent to enforce the removal of his four vessels on a stretch of the Grand Union Canal at Brentford. He was the riparian owner, but did not own any part of the bed.
Held: His appeal was allowed. . .
Cited – Ravenscroft v Canal and River Trust ChD 14-Sep-2016
Special Circumstances to appoint McKenzie Friend
An application was made to have a nominated person appointed as McKenzie friend and as advocate for the claimant. The claimant’s narrow boat had been seized by the defendant for non payment of licence fees and for not having a Pleasure Boat . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Human Rights
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451435