Jones v Canal And River Trust

Jones v Canal And River Trust

The Canal and River Trust, as a non-housing public authority, does not owe Article 8 ECHR housing duties to the appellant in the context of terminating a continuous navigation licence, and the proportionality test does not apply; thus, the Article 8 defence is not seriously arguable and was correctly struck out.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Matthew Jones; Respondent/claimant: Canal and River Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Striking Out Defence (article 8 Argument)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Public Authority Duties, Boat Licensing, Possession Proceedings
Public Law Human Rights Law Property Law Article 8 ECHR Proportionality Public Authority Duties Boat Licensing Possession Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Jones

Appellant/defendant

Canal and River Trust

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Striking Out Defence (article 8 Argument)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a non-housing public authority (Canal and River Trust) owes Article 8 ECHR duties regarding housing needs when terminating a boat licence
  2. 2 Whether the proportionality test under Article 8 applies to the Trust's decision
  3. 3 Whether the Article 8 defence is seriously arguable in the context of boat licence termination

Ratio Decidendi

The Canal and River Trust, as a non-housing public authority, does not owe Article 8 ECHR housing duties to the appellant in the context of terminating a continuous navigation licence, and the proportionality test does not apply; thus, the Article 8 defence is not seriously arguable and was correctly struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No reinstatement of Article 8 defence