Jones v Canal And River Trust

A public authority responsible for managing waterways, but which is not a housing authority, does not owe a duty under Article 8 to investigate or address a boat owner's housing needs when terminating a navigation licence. The proportionality approach applicable to public authority landlords providing social housing does not apply. Consequently, no Article 8 proportionality argument arises against the termination decision on that basis.

The appellant owned and lived on a boat moored on the Kennet and Avon Canal. The respondent, the Canal and River Trust, was the statutory navigational authority and had terminated his continuous navigation licence. In proceedings for declaratory and injunctive relief, the appellant sought to rely on Article 8, arguing that the Trust had failed to consider his housing needs.

The County Court struck out the relevant defence paragraphs. The High Court treated the permission application as an effective appeal. The issues concerned whether the social-housing Article 8 approach applied, whether proportionality imposed too great a burden on the Trust, and whether the Article 8 argument was seriously arguable.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The County Court had correctly struck out the Article 8 defence.
2. The Trust was a public authority and the statutory navigational authority, but it was not a housing authority. It therefore owed no Article 8 duty to the appellant in relation to his housing needs.
3. The approach used in Article 8 cases concerning social housing and public authority landlords did not apply to the Trust. The principles identified in Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45 and the seven principles formulated for local authority landlords in Thurrock Borough Council v West [2012] EWCA Civ 1435 did not create a proportionality issue in this context.
4. The County Court judge had gone on to consider whether the Article 8 argument was triable and had concluded that the Trust could not reasonably be expected to investigate or address those rights. That reasoning could not be faulted, and the judge had correctly interpreted the relevant authorities and principles.
5. The suggestion that the competing arguments were finely balanced may have encouraged false hope. They were not. No seriously arguable Article 8 proportionality argument arose on the pleaded basis.

• High Court (Queen's Bench Division): treated the permission application as an effective appeal and dismissed the appeal.
• County Court in Bristol: His Honour Judge Denyer QC struck out paragraphs 10–12 of the defence, which raised the Article 8 argument.