Brown, R (on the application of) v Canal River Trust

Brown, R (on the application of) v Canal River Trust

The 2011 Guidance does not misstate the correct legal interpretation of s.17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995; the claim is out of time and unarguable on all substantive grounds, including statutory interpretation, Article 8 ECHR, and the Equality Act 2010.

Parties
Claimant: Nick Brown; Defendant: Canal River Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Judicial Review Procedure, Licensing of Inland Waterways, Article 8 ECHR, Equality Act 2010
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Equality Law Statutory Interpretation Judicial Review Procedure Licensing of Inland Waterways Article 8 ECHR Equality Act 2010

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nick Brown

Claimant

Canal River Trust

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2011 Guidance misstates the correct legal interpretation of s.17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether s.43(3) of the Transport Act 1962 permits the imposition of terms and conditions beyond s.17(3)
  3. 3 Whether the 2011 Guidance breaches Article 8 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The 2011 Guidance does not misstate the correct legal interpretation of s.17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995; the claim is out of time and unarguable on all substantive grounds, including statutory interpretation, Article 8 ECHR, and the Equality Act 2010.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay Defendant’s costs in the sum of £15,000.