Captain Wyatt owned land near the harbour and wanted to moor his boat by it. The Harbour authority said he needed a licence. The Harbour authority requested him to move the boat as a danger to navigation. The Captain sought a judicial review of the authority’s action.
Held: Under the Act, the harbour authority had power to grant licences for moorings. In fact no decision had been made by the authority which was susceptible to an intervention by the respondent. Mooring meant more than the tackle used in fixing a boat’s location, and included the occupation of space by the bank.
The Hon Mr Justice Lightman
 EWHC 1494 (Admin),  2 Lloyds Rep 607
Dart Harbour and Navigation Authority Act 1975 33, Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 51
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Somerset County Council Ex Parte Fewings and Others CA 22-Mar-1995
The local authority had accepted the argument that stag hunting was cruel and had banned it from the land it owned in the Quantocks. The ban was challenged.
Held: The ban was unlawful. The decision had been reached on moral, and not on . .
Cited – Ipswich Borough Council v Moore and Another CA 25-Jul-2001
A statute in 1950 granted to the port authority powers, inter alia, to grant licences for moorings on the foreshore. These powers overrode the ancient Royal Charter which vested the foreshore in the local authority. Accordingly licences issued by . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Wright CA 1897
The nouns ‘mooring’ and ‘moorings’ have been judicially defined as ‘a mode of anchoring a vessel by means of a fastening in the ground, either an anchor or something heavy or a chain and buoy, as will allow a vessel picking up the buoy when she . .
Cited – Liverpool and North Wales SS Co Ltd v Mersey Trading Co 1908
A company was authorised by Order to construct a pier and to charge vessels for mooring. It did so but went into liquidation. The assignee from the liquidator discovered that the pier had not been constructed as ordered. It leased the pier to the . .
Cited – Regina v Hampshire County Council ex parte W 9-Jun-1994
A court reviewing a decision must apply a straightforward factual test based on all the material before the reviewing body. . .
Cited – Tom Hudson (HM Inspector of Taxes) v JDC Services Limited ChD 26-Mar-2004
The taxpayer company had been refused a statutory Construction Industry Scheme certificate. The General Commissioners allowed the company’s appeal and itself issued a certificate. The revenue said the Commissioners had no jurisdiction either to hear . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.184171