Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Richmond-Upon-Thames v Trotman [2024] EWHC 9 (KB) (09 January 2024)

Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Richmond-Upon-Thames v Trotman [2024] EWHC 9 (KB) (09 January 2024)

The defendant's prolonged anchoring of his vessel within 3 metres of the claimant's riverbank constituted a public nuisance by unreasonably obstructing access for other river users, justifying a prohibitory injunction. There was insufficient evidence of trespass or breach of byelaws to justify an injunction on those grounds. No basis existed for attaching a power of arrest as there was no evidence of violence or risk of harm.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 9 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF RICHMOND-UPON-THAMES; Defendant: ALISTAIR TROTMAN
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (part 8 Claim) / Final Substantive Trial Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in part. Prohibitory injunction granted. No power of arrest attached. Costs awarded to claimant.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Trespass, Public Nuisance, Mooring Byelaws, River Navigation Rights, Power of Arrest, Costs
Civil Procedure Local Government Law Property Law Public Nuisance Injunctions Trespass Mooring Byelaws River Navigation Rights +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF RICHMOND-UPON-THAMES

Claimant

ALISTAIR TROTMAN

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (part 8 Claim) / Final Substantive Trial Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant trespassed on claimant's land by mooring or anchoring a vessel adjacent to the riverbank
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's conduct constituted a public nuisance
  3. 3 Whether a prohibitory injunction should be granted against the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's prolonged anchoring of his vessel within 3 metres of the claimant's riverbank constituted a public nuisance by unreasonably obstructing access for other river users, justifying a prohibitory injunction. There was insufficient evidence of trespass or breach of byelaws to justify an injunction on those grounds. No basis existed for attaching a power of arrest as there was no evidence of violence or risk of harm.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part. Prohibitory injunction granted. No power of arrest attached. Costs awarded to claimant.

Orders

  • The defendant is prohibited from bringing, mooring or leaving any vessel on the River Thames within 3 metres of the claimant's riverbank unless in compliance with the claimant's Byelaws Relating to Mooring 2015 or amendments/replacements.
  • The injunction remains in force indefinitely unless varied by court order.