|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 12, 2016 14:56:29 GMT
Tomorrow the EA are in the High Court appealing against the decision by the earlier Magistrates Court, that boats in private marinas do not comprise waters within which boat registration is required.
As there are some analogies with elements of Leigh's case, I am very interested in the outcome, and hope to attend the hearing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 15:37:34 GMT
That will be interesting . Do let us know how it goes I really don't know much about it but I thought there was something like if the River flows into a marina and out of it then it is Thames water and subject to ea license enforcement . This could be complicated with places like Penton Hook for example. Probably got that all wrong anyway !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 18:26:13 GMT
Would be good if the judge turned around and says stop wasting money on court cases and get the waterways cleaned up and safe from flooding
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 18:48:16 GMT
Our club signed up to being a proxy licence checker despite the majority of mooring being on private water.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Dec 12, 2016 19:08:08 GMT
Our club signed up to being a proxy licence checker despite the majority of mooring being on private water. There are too many poxy license checkers already...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 19:15:00 GMT
Did you mean poxy or proxy
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Dec 12, 2016 19:17:25 GMT
Did you mean poxy or proxy I certainly meant poxy
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Dec 12, 2016 19:30:11 GMT
I hate poxy licence checkers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 19:33:37 GMT
Our club signed up to being a proxy licence checker despite the majority of mooring being on private water. There are too many poxy license checkers already... Yes, that's true, busy bodies It's now a stipulation of membership that boats must be licenced, bss and insured even if they never leave the confines of the private waters - specifically the lake and enlarged mill pool.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 19:50:00 GMT
Noticed that Nora Trace liked my post about proxy/poxy then unliked it when she saw I was being a prat
|
|
|
Post by canaldweller on Dec 12, 2016 19:57:57 GMT
Our club signed up to being a proxy licence checker despite the majority of mooring being on private water. There are too many poxy license checkers already... Yeah. Too right. They should keep their nasty poxes away from the canals and rivers.
|
|
|
Post by phil70 on Dec 13, 2016 0:44:54 GMT
There are too many poxy license checkers already... Yes, that's true, busy bodies It's now a stipulation of membership that boats must be licenced, bss and insured even if they never leave the confines of the private waters - specifically the lake and enlarged mill pool. This is the case (supposedly) on our marina. Phil
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Dec 13, 2016 1:10:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Dec 13, 2016 8:24:33 GMT
That will be interesting . Do let us know how it goes I really don't know much about it but I thought there was something like if the River flows into a marina and out of it then it is Thames water and subject to ea license enforcement . This could be complicated with places like Penton Hook for example. Probably got that all wrong anyway ! In which case EA should require all cars in the flood area to have a licence so when the river overflows and the cars start bobbing about they would be legal :-)
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 13, 2016 19:38:29 GMT
That will be interesting . Do let us know how it goes I really don't know much about it but I thought there was something like if the River flows into a marina and out of it then it is Thames water and subject to ea license enforcement . This could be complicated with places like Penton Hook for example. Probably got that all wrong anyway ! In which case EA should require all cars in the flood area to have a licence so when the river overflows and the cars start bobbing about they would be legal :-) Such a scenario [minus the cars] was exactly what the judges postulated at one point [but added their recognition that was taking things to the point of absurdity]. It was all a bit uncomfortable today. While one can never be wholly confident about calling the shots in these things, the distinct impression I had was that the judges had worked out where they wanted to take this and had determined their questioning strategy accordingly. The whole “adjacent waters” application and Secretary of State response was dismissed before even going there, as beside the point of the appeal; they were there to construe the meaning of the Thames as per s.4 of the 1932 Act only, not test the value of what some minister in an untested remark produced. That left both sides rather grasping at air, as neither had approached the matter from quite the angle the judges wanted to take. But while the judges needled both barristers equally, they supplied the EA with better arguments couched better, as alternatives, while herding the boaters’ barrister into a corner over the definition of “works” whence he was unable to satisfactorily extricate himself. Ditto regarding the link that they saw between the PRN and the extent of jurisdiction. The boaters' barrister properly argued [in my belief] that the PRN did not extend into the private marinas, but this itself involved a reluctant acceptance that it was a crucial point – which on my understanding, it is not. CaRT, as one example, cannot deny entry into the river Brent/Grand Union, because of the PRN – but that fact never brought it within the jurisdiction of the early Thames Conservancy under the same exemptive terms for then existing privately owned and constructed works [in 1866 & 1894] as were to apply to works built for private purposes after 1932. The judge in my preliminary hearing so found [he was utterly wrong on the pertinent facts, but the legal principle was sound]. That judgment, then, upholds the early category of PRIVATE “works” as being exempt, irrespective of the continued PRN – which necessarily extended to all such “works” along the tidal Thames stretch; the tides reached into all of them; they remained private and exempt from TC jurisdiction nonetheless. Instead of taking that tack, however, when put on the spot the boaters’ barrister denied that those “docks, locks” etc were “works”. It was damned uncomfortable; I could see what he was trying to do and agree with what he was trying to do, but in the context of the probing, it was the wrong reaction and made the whole argument look terrible, weak and floundering. He needed to appeal to the prior statutes showing both exempt and applicable “works”, with the difference lying in whether they were public or private, not in whether they were classifiable as works or not. Easy to say when not in the hot seat. Judgment sometime in the new year. One can only hope that the side getting the worst pasting did so as misleading tactics to show how brutally fair the judges are, and that even as they decided for themselves what the point of construction should be for determining, so they will research that properly for themselves.
|
|