The Port of London Authority v Tower Bridge Yacht & Boat Co Ltd

The exemption for pre-1857 mooring chains preserves the facility of mooring, including like-for-like replacement of roots and chains. It does not permit substitute roots placed in different positions, improvements increasing the capacity of the original moorings, additional chains, or chains fixed to river walls or piling. The party seeking licensing must prove that a challenged mooring was not in existence before the statutory date. A mooring right is not acquired by prescription unless the relevant historical user and competent grantor are established. Mooring activity ordinarily constitutes user rather than adverse possession of the underlying river bed.

The Port of London Authority sought declarations concerning moorings used by Tower Bridge Yacht & Boat Company Limited at Downings Roads on the Thames. The principal issue was whether the moorings fell within the exemption in section 63 of the Port of London Act 1968 for mooring chains placed before 29 September 1857.

The claim also concerned replacement and additional works, chains connected to river walls and piling, estoppel, legitimate expectation, prescription, and limitation. The Authority sought licensing control, not removal of the barges.

1. The claim succeeded in part. The PLA failed to establish that most of the challenged moorings were post-1857, but established that three were not pre-1857. Seven substitute roots laid in the 1990s, improvements beyond the original quality, additional chains, and chains connected to the river wall or piling required a licence.

2. The burden of proving that a mooring chain was placed after 29 September 1857 lay on the PLA. The statutory scheme created a criminal offence for unlicensed works, and the legislative history indicated that the licensing prohibition applied to post-1857 works. The same allocation applied in civil proceedings. The court relied on R v Hunt [1987] AC 352 and Nimmo v Alexander Cowan [1968] AC.

3. Section 63 preserved like-for-like replacement of a pre-1857 mooring chain, including its root. It did not preserve a substitute root placed near, but not in relation to, the original root, a root with materially greater capacity, or additional chains. A chain attached to a wall or river-bed piling was “works” within the Act and was not exempt.

4. The estoppel and legitimate-expectation claims failed. Although the PLA had sometimes referred to the moorings as ancient, the defendant had largely formed its own belief, had not fully disclosed the scope of the works, and had incurred expenditure before the relevant discussions. The public interest in licensing control and the expanded physical footprint of the moorings also justified the PLA’s position. The principles were considered by reference to Thorner v Major [2009] 1 WLR 776, Crabb v Arun DC [1976] Ch 79, and Rowland v Environment Agency [2005] Ch 67.

5. The claims to a franchise and limitation title failed. The defendant could not prove prescriptive user referable to a competent grantor, and mooring activity amounted to user rather than adverse possession. Relief was to be agreed or argued further.