Prankerd, R (on the application of) v The Carrick Districk Council [1998] EWHC 2005 (QB) (24 July 1998)

Prankerd, R (on the application of) v The Carrick Districk Council [1998] EWHC 2005 (QB) (24 July 1998)

Mooring charges are not 'ship dues' within the meaning of Section 26(3) of the Harbours Act 1964; therefore, the harbour authority had no statutory power to distrain for non-payment of such charges, and the decision to distrain on the yacht was unlawful and invalid.

Citation
[1998] EWHC 2005
Parties
Applicant: Mrs Prankerd; Respondent: Carrick District Council; Amicus Curiae: Attorney General (represented by Mr Timothy Brenton QC)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 1998
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Argument
Outcome
Application for judicial review allowed; decision to distrain declared unlawful and invalid.
Legal Topics
Harbour Authority Powers, Distraint for Non Payment, Mooring Charges, Ship Dues, Interpretation of Harbour, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, Interpretation of Harbours Act 1964
Administrative Law Maritime Law Statutory Interpretation Harbour Authority Powers Distraint for Non Payment Mooring Charges Ship Dues Interpretation of Harbour, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 +1 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Prankerd

Applicant

Carrick District Council

Respondent

Attorney General (represented by Mr Timothy Brenton QC)

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a harbour authority has statutory power to distrain for non-payment of mooring charges in respect of a private yacht under Section 44 of the Harbour, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 and Section 26(3) of the Harbours Act 1964
  2. 2 Whether the yacht 'Winnie Rigg' was a ship or vessel 'used in navigation' within the meaning of the relevant statutes
  3. 3 Whether mooring charges constitute 'ship dues' under Section 26(3) of the Harbours Act 1964

Ratio Decidendi

Mooring charges are not 'ship dues' within the meaning of Section 26(3) of the Harbours Act 1964; therefore, the harbour authority had no statutory power to distrain for non-payment of such charges, and the decision to distrain on the yacht was unlawful and invalid.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review allowed; decision to distrain declared unlawful and invalid.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Respondent had no right to distrain on 'Winnie Rigg' for mooring charges and that the decision to do so was unlawful and invalid.
  • Applicant awarded costs of the proceedings except for the costs of the adjournment on 2nd April 1998, which are to be paid to the Respondent.