Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


NigelMoore last won the day on October 15 2017

NigelMoore had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

662 Excellent


Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

10428 profile views
  1. You are still conflating the 2 distinct elements, which only serves to confuse the relevant issues. Attachment/touching, however temporary, remains a distinct act of potential trespass depending on what relevant rights either public or private attend the situation. US case law in this area is more comprehensive than here in the UK, but even so, the extent of permissible temporary (even accidental) contact with land over which one may legitmately float, has been the subject of judicial examination over centuries. A land owner may grant a right of 'occupation' that still requires an
  2. Hardly. If you were not under way, then absent some attachment to land (whether fundus or ripa) you would be drifting out of contol contrary to byelaws. Any mooring right comprises 2 essential elements: a right to float on the water, and a right to attach to a fixed point of land. The boat licence allows only one element, the gift of the other lies with the appropriate land owner.
  3. Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting, because it uses the very language relied upon by CaRT when claiming what is NOT being granted by the boat licence. Of course, although I believe that the outcome was the right decision to have made in the strict terms of this appeal, my views on the entirely false argumentative construct of the nature of licences would necessitate a rejection of any conclusion based thereon - but that is hardly open to CaRT; the judge has made his decision based solely on how THEY represent "the contract".
  4. I first read through this judgment in some dismay at the unquestioning swallowing of the Boat Licence “contractual” nature, alert to any knock-on effects in relation to other current issues plaguing yet another sector of boaters, with offside moorings that CaRT refuse to recognise. The refusal of the Appeal Court to consider my marshalled arguments on that topic (in the interests of focussing on a single issue), meant that the EoG situation has remained since then, where Stoner & Co had left it at County Court levels – that the boat licence did NOT confer any right for the boat to occupy “
  5. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  6. Interesting. I had a quick look at the 1977 Act and I presume it is s.23 that is relied on. Unlike the similar clause relating to BW in the Transport Act 1962, there are no saving clauses whatsoever! Charging 23. Without prejudice to any other power available to it, the Agency may demand, take and recover or waive such charges for or in connection with the use of the waterways and for any services or facilities provided by it in connection with the waterways as it thinks fit. I did note that one had to keep your use of the waterway in line with whatever category o
  7. The bit that engaged my attention was this - “The fee set by the EA was, of course, much larger than the £2 registration fee which had previously been levied. However, it was also plain that the EA had moved from a scheme of making two charges – for registration and for use of the waterway to a combined and single charge which covered both.” If a boat was already currently registered under the prior scheme, what was the separate charge called, for use of the waterway? It sounds too much like a “licence” for comfort. Or could one register a boat as a ‘go-nowhere’ stationary vessel
  8. Thanks for the link to that case erivers. It raises some curiosity in me as to exactly what distinction the EA had historically made between registration charges only, and a 'separate' charge for 'use of the waterway'. Certainly on the Thames a boat wanting to 'use' the waterway was required to be registered, but need not if merely 'kept' on the river - is that the sort of distinction referred to I wonder, though if so there were not separate charges. The difference more modern legislation brought was in 2010 covering the registration requirement for all EA rivers whether a boat was used or me
  9. It was HH Judge Denyer QC in the judgment against George Ward of 20 December 2012 on the Bristol County Court :- “Other than the removal of the boat the only sanction provided for in the legislation in respect of a contravention of the Rules by a person such as the Claimant is that of a derisory fine. I think it has now reached the sum of £50. If they are not entitled to take these steps i.e. removal of the boat from the river they are in truth substantially powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use the waterways. I do not regard the ability to take debt recovery pro
  10. Very unlikely to forget it, myself. It made an impression.
  11. The only reason BW/CaRT have ever advanced for not prosecuting under the byelaws (or the 1971 Act in the case of river registrations) is that the penalties imposable are “derisory”. One of the County Court judges when handing down judgment in an early s.8 case was in complete agreement with that argument re: the proportionality of utilising boat seizure powers. It is a salutary example of a wildly different administrative ethos. The EA ‘enjoy’ broadly similar powers to CaRT reference dealing with unregistered boats &/or boats that can be removed from their waterway. Stats are a
  12. In fact, there are (I have since learned) no court fees payable in bringing a private prosecution for a criminal offence, so pursuing this route as the EA do, need involve only the cost of their employee's time - which is of course salaried anyway. There is no need at all for employment of solicitors or barristers to pursue the case if the in-house legal staff are up to scratch. If, however, professional representation was paid for - and that could be justified before the court - then it is always open to the prosecutor to apply for their costs (even if they fail to obtain a convic
  13. You are correct; not licensing a boat when this is mandatory is a criminal offence prosecutable in the Magistrates Court by Canal and River Trust. This is so provided in the British Waterways 1976 Byelaws. CaRT could do exactly what the EA are doing if they chose to – what is more, in my view, that is precisely what they ought to be doing in place of s.8 procedures.
  14. For those prepared to swallow the ‘official’ line of nonsense over needing CaRT’s chargeable consent, it might be worth pointing out that CaRT are now – since March this year – no longer applying the restriction of their consent to mooring against private land only if it has a residential dwelling on it. “Secondly, single ‘end of garden’ mooring applications will now be considered against privately-owned land, not just that which has a residential dwelling on it. Permission will only be granted to the landowner and sub-letting the mooring will not be permitted.” https:
  15. Many towpaths (though not all) were recorded as public rights of way under the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1948, despite vigorous opposition from the British Transport Commission. BW continued to consider all towpath use as by their consent only, regardless, but there was no legal merit to that, post the publication of the Definitive Maps & Statements under the Act. It might also help understanding of the topic to note that the legal situation was altered yet again under the terms of the Transfer Order of 2012. As the ‘Explanatory Document’ to the Order states:
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.