Can the owner of waterfront land moor his boat there?
In this context the law ignores the ownership of the water and concentrates entirely on the ownership of the land and the rights existing over it. The general presumption is that the owner of the bank of a non-tidal river will own the river bed up to the mid-point and that ownership of the land under the river will bring with it the right to moor over it. If in the particular circumstances the owner of the bank does not own any part of the river bed he will have no right to moor.
The case of Nigel Moore v British Waterways Board concerned a stretch of tidal water. The presumption for tidal water is that the river bed belongs to the Crown and so Moore was unable to show any property ownership or rights to allow him to moor his boats. The court rejected the argument that ownership of the bank brought with it an implied right to park a boat beyond any reasonable time necessary to achieve access…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Mills & Reeve briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Mills & Reeve
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Mills & Reeve
The Court of Appeal has handed down its decision in Mitchell v News Group, resolving recent uncertainty about the implementation of Jackson reforms — at least for the time being.
There is an implied term allowing a paying responding party under an adjudication award six years from the date of payment to challenge the adjudicator’s decision.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The trend for unbundling legal work is advancing through the law firm ranks but there is still resistance in some quarters - namely in-house. We asked why