Environment Agency (Thames Region) v John Bushnell Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 517 (28 March 2001)

Environment Agency (Thames Region) v John Bushnell Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 517 (28 March 2001)

It was unlawful for the respondent, in determining the consideration for the licence, not to take into account the fact that the backwater moorings were viable only as a result of the substantial and recurrent expense of dredging the creek. This expense was a material consideration directly affecting the navigational usefulness and value of the facilities, and must be considered in any fair and reasonable assessment under s 60 of the 1932 Act.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 517
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Environment Agency (Thames Region); Defendant/appellant: John Bushnell Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Statutory Licensing, Assessment of Fair and Reasonable Consideration, Public Law Powers, Implied Contractual Terms, River Navigation Rights
Administrative Law Contract Law Property Law Statutory Licensing Assessment of Fair and Reasonable Consideration Public Law Powers Implied Contractual Terms River Navigation Rights

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Environment Agency (Thames Region)

Claimant/respondent

John Bushnell Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assessment of licence fees under s 60 Thames Conservancy Act 1932 must take into account the burden of dredging costs incurred by the licensee
  2. 2 Whether the method of assessment adopted by the Environment Agency was fair and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

It was unlawful for the respondent, in determining the consideration for the licence, not to take into account the fact that the backwater moorings were viable only as a result of the substantial and recurrent expense of dredging the creek. This expense was a material consideration directly affecting the navigational usefulness and value of the facilities, and must be considered in any fair and reasonable assessment under s 60 of the 1932 Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the basis of assessment adopted was not fair and reasonable because it failed to take into account dredging costs.
  • Declaration that the assessments for the years ending September 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 should be re-undertaken by the claimants in accordance with the principles stated in the judgment, taking positive account of dredging costs.