The issue was whether the rights given under the section could only be exercised by owners of land on either side of the canal.
Held: The Act took rights over land and was to be construed in the case of any ambiguity against its proposers. Section 79 was a proviso intended to protect the rights of the land owners. The requirement that the canal cut through land could not be read to require ownership of land on both sides.
Citations:
[1997] EWCA Civ 1089, [1997] NPC 29, [1998] JPL 153, [1997] EG 33 (CS)
Links:
Statutes:
Grand Junction Canal Act 1793 79
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Proprietors of the Stourbridge Canal v Wheeley 1831
The court explained the Act: ‘The canal having been made under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, the rights of the plaintiffs are derived entirely from that Act. This, like many other cases, is a bargain between a company of adventurers and . .
Cited – Campbell Discount Company Ltd v Bridge HL 1962
The parties disputed the validity of a clause in a car hire contract relating to the consequences of a breach.
Held: (Majority) The agreement had been terminated by breach rather than by the exercise of an option, so that the stipulated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Land
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141485