Ravenscroft v Canal And River Trust

For the purposes of the licensing regime, “main navigable channel” means the entirety, bank to bank, of the main through route of the relevant waterway, excluding tributaries, branches, unused sections, cuts and creeks that are not essential to through navigation. It does not mean only the deepest or customary fairway.

A power to remove an unauthorised vessel under British Waterways Act 1983, section 8 is free-standing. It is directed to the safe and orderly management of waterways, rather than solely to recovery of licence fees. Its use is compatible with Article 1 of the First Protocol where it is rationally connected to that objective and strikes a fair balance between individual property rights and the community’s interests.

The claimant owned a pleasure boat moored on the River Trent. The defendant, the Canal and River Trust, removed it under section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 because it was on the waterway without a valid pleasure boat certificate or other relevant consent. The vessel was returned after payment of removal, storage and other sums.

The claimant sought declarations, repayment and compensation. He argued that the statutory phrase “main navigable channel” referred only to the river’s fairway, that removal was disproportionate under Article 1 of the First Protocol, and that the vessel had been used unlawfully as distress for licence arrears. The central issues were the construction of the phrase, the proportionality of removal, and the legal character of the defendant’s possession.

1. Construction. The phrase “main navigable channel” in Part II of the British Waterways Act 1971 covered the entirety, bank to bank, of the main through route of the relevant river, canal or navigation, excluding tributaries, streams, branches, unused sections, cuts and creeks not essential to through navigation. It was not confined to a movable and undefined deep channel or fairway.
2. The narrower construction would make the licensing, registration and strict-liability offence provisions uncertain and practically unworkable. The vessel therefore required a valid pleasure boat certificate under section 5(1).
3. Proportionality. Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 was a free-standing power. It did not require the defendant first to prosecute, sue for licence arrears or exhaust other remedies. The objective of safe and proper waterway management was sufficiently important; removal was rationally connected to that objective; and the fair-balance requirement was satisfied.
4. Distress. The vessel had been removed pursuant to section 8 for waterway-management purposes, not taken into possession as security for licence arrears. The Statute of Marlborough therefore did not apply. The inclusion of arrears in later demands was improper, but no recoverable loss was proved beyond, at most, nominal damages.
5. The claims were dismissed.