|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 9, 2020 17:35:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 10, 2020 11:29:00 GMT
Having re-read Mr Stoner's skeleton, I should apologise for for the suggestion that he concurred with the judge's finding that conferred riparian rights were repealed contrary to the Swan Hill and Paine judgments. The CCJ in fact referenced Swan Hill to the effect that IF the Act had conferred relevant unrepealed rights, Roberts would have inherited them.
Mr Stoner's argument had instead, been that the TA1968 had the effect of abolishing any rights to keep boats on the canals free of charges, even if the enabling Acts had granted that, but also that THOSE rights, anyway, referred ONLY to constructing lay-by's within the riparian owner's land, not to moor in the canal itself without payment. That latter part of the argument (accepted by the CCJ) was what Mr Stoner had successfully argued in Paine.
Still nonsense of course, and contrary to the later arguments of his client in other proceedings, but consistent.
|
|
|
Post by twiggy on Jul 11, 2020 12:02:24 GMT
Yes I read this the other day; think it's worth noting that if anyone does apply, then it is likely it will get refused at first so you'd need to appeal and maybe copy and paste the ruling in the article (or send the link with your application). T.
|
|