The Environment Agency v Gibbs & Anor

The statutory meaning of “vessel” depends on the wording and context of the particular enactment. Under the Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2010, the definition is wide but remains anchored to the ordinary meaning of vessel. A structure is not a vessel merely because it floats, supports people or goods, or can theoretically be moved. The relevant question is one of fact and degree, including whether navigation or directed movement on water is a significant part of its function. Permanent floating houses, secured in place and designed for accommodation rather than transportation, therefore fall outside the definition.

The Environment Agency appealed by way of case stated under section 28 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The Crown Court at Peterborough had allowed the respondents’ appeals against convictions for keeping unregistered vessels on a waterway, contrary to articles 4(1) and 18(1)(a) of the Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2010.

The Crown Court found that the respondents’ structures were floating houses assembled on rafts, secured by poles, chains and anchors, connected to mains services, lacking propulsion, keel and ballast, and never having been moved in practice. The issue was whether those structures were “vessels” within article 2 of the Order.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The question was confined to whether the particular structures were vessels under article 2 of the Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2010; the court was not deciding whether every houseboat is a vessel.
2. The definition in article 2 is doubly inclusive, but its second limb identifies the essential statutory concept. A vessel is something constructed or used to carry people or things, or to be propelled or moved, on, in or by water. The wide words remain restricted by their statutory context and the ordinary meaning of “vessel”.
3. Definitions in other legislation and decisions under different statutory schemes provide only limited assistance. They may illuminate the ordinary characteristics of a vessel, but cannot determine the meaning of article 2.
4. The issue is necessarily one of fact and degree. Floating, supporting the weight of occupants or goods, or possessing a theoretical ability to be towed does not suffice. Navigation or directed movement on water must be a significant part of the structure’s function, although carriage of people or goods is not in every case essential.
5. The structures were constructed and used as homes on water. Their movement into position was only initial manoeuvring. Thereafter they were fixed by poles, chains and anchors, lacked propulsion, keel and ballast, were unstable when moved, and had never been moved from their positions. Navigation was not a significant part of their function.
6. The public interest in a simple registration scheme could not justify extending “vessel” to include floating structures generally. The Order used the concept of a vessel, rather than “houseboat” or “floating structure”, so fact-sensitive application was inevitable.
7. The Crown Court was right to conclude that the structures were not vessels within article 2. The case-stated question was answered in the affirmative and the appeal dismissed.

High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed. The court affirmed the Crown Court’s conclusion that the structures were not vessels under article 2 of the Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2010.