View
222
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
1/23
e
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECHANCERY DIVISION
Case No. HC/07C02340
Court No: 15
Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondon
WC2A 2LL
Thursday, 12th March 2009
Before
MR MANN QC SITTING AS DEPUTY JUDGE
NIGEL PETER MOORE
and
BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD
Transcribed from the official Tape RecordingUbiqus
Cliffords Inn, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1LDTel: +44 (0)20 7269 0370
MR MOORE appeared IN PERSON
MR C STONER appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
---------
WHOLE HEARING
---------
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2829
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
3940
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
2/23
e
Court rises.
JUDGE MANN: You have been provided with the approved judgment now. I understood
there are no typographical errors or anything of that kind, so this will stand as the
authentic judgement of the Court. I have a number of copies. The court will need
one, so I will hand that down. If the shorthand writers or anyone else needs them,
then here are another three. Please have a coloured copy of the plan of the
[inaudible] in them. There is another one here.
MR STONER: The approved judgment hasnt yet reached us.
JUDGE MANN: Well it should have done. In which case, these can be taken as the
approved judgment.
MR STONER: Thank you very much.
JUDGE MANN: It should have been e-mailed to you yesterday afternoon.
MR MOORE: Certainly, I didnt receive any e-mail.
JUDGE MANN: For that then, I will apologise on behalf of whoever is responsible, other
than myself and make it my responsibility.
I have been provided with a draft minute of order, Mr Moore, have you seen that?
MR MOORE: The draft minute of order, My Lord?
JUDGE MANN: Yes.
MR MOORE: Yes, I have.
JUDGE MANN: Do you have any observations to make on that?
MR MOORE: Yes, My Lord. With respect, but predominantly to issue number one.
Because I am finding myself slightly bemused, in terms of the judgment, with what
you had said in the course of the judgment and with the fact that it is essentially,
issue one is not really being answered.
JUDGE MANN: Well it has, as a matter of fact. Issue one is set out, in fact, in the part
minute of order but it is also at the back of the approved judgment. And the
question the Master raised, order to be determined as issue one, was whether the
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
3/23
e
rights concerning the Waterway between [Becks Mill?] 0:114 and the River
Thames, as describe in the Grand Junction Canal, remain in force and unaffected by
the provisions of the Transport Act 1968. And the answer to that is that the private
right of navigation, which was what the Act created, was repealed by the 1968 Act.
MR MOORE: Yes, My Lord. What my request had been in terms of this issue was that
the rights that were described, the rights that were pre-existing, did remain in force
and were not repealed. Not in respect of any-
JUDGE MANN: -if you mean the public right of navigation, then that is not affected
because the private right is the only right which was created by the Act of 1793.
The existing public right was not destroyed by the Act of 1793 but continues so far
as exercise.
MR MOORE: Well My Lord, yes, I am happy that you did so find that, but that was a
large part of my argument respecting this.
JUDGE MANN: Yes, well the public right of navigation will still exist but whether it can
be used to full advantage is another matter.
MR MOORE: Well, I understand that, My Lord. Obviously this, as we discussed in the
hearing was a preliminary, on the preliminary issues, of which this was one. The
consequences of that, as to whether it was going to assist me in my case was yet to
be determined in the case, as it followed on from these preliminary issues. So it was
important that if it found that the rights, including predominantly the public right of
navigation, does still exist and those private rights, whether navigational or riparian,
as did exist at the time; and as described as pre-existing-
JUDGE MANN: What I have done, Mr Moore, is to answer the question. The rights
concerning the waterway, as described, and the rights concerning the waterway, as
described, include the public right. But the one right which it creates, which has
been dealt with by the Transport Act 1968, has been repealed. So you have the
answer. If you want the answer to be extended, I will have to hear Mr Stoner about
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
4/23
e
it, to the effect that the public right as described in the Act continues to exist, then
so be it. Riparian rights are clearly not rights with which you are concerned for the
very reasons that I said in the judgment. And the riparian rights are not described,
as I recall it, in the 1793 Act.
MR MOORE: Well, My Lord, with respect, I do disagree on that score.
JUDGE MANN: But the judgment itself deals with the question of riparian rights, as you
have read.
MR MOORE: I have read that, My Lord, yes. But, as I have attempted to have that issue
couched-
JUDGE MANN: Well it was not cast, as I understood it, by the question. Maybe the
question was deficient?
MR MOORE: If that is so, My Lord-
JUDGE MANN: If the question had been something like: Whether the rights, that is to
say the right, if any, created by the Act and/or the public right of navigation and/or
the riparian rights, concerning the waterway, as described or otherwise affected by
that Act, remain in force and unaffected by the provisions of the Transport Act
1968. That could have been answered in that way. So the answer would have
been: Public right not affected, private right repealed, riparian rights not affected.
MR MOORE: Well, that is effectively-
JUDGE MANN: -and it may be that that is something you can agree with Mr Stoner, I do
not know, he may not want to agree that but that is the result of the judgment but
the question is answered, in my view, the first issue was answered by the answer
that I have given.
MR MOORE: My Lord, obviously from what you have added there is something that I
would have agreed with, if we are saying, that such an answer was only possible had
I phrased the question more-
JUDGE MANN: -well I do not think you mis-phrased it, I think, presumably the Master
3
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
5/23
e
phrased it, did he, or?
MR MOORE: -with help, but basically myself, in agreement Shoosmiths, My Lord.
Because I was trying to embrace all of the rights, as described.
JUDGE MANN: Well the problem is [inaudible] language and, if possible, I can default it
on that part. The right, as described-
MR MOORE: -were numerous.
JUDGE MANN: Well, the rights concerning the waterway were not that numerous. The
rights concerning the waterway concerned how and whether you can go up and
down it as a private individual or in the public right, as hitherto. So, as hitherto, if
exercising the public right in so far as that public right is still exercisable and
continues to subsist. But the private right, which is what we seem to be more
concerned about, has gone.
MR MOORE: My Lord, I would disagree that I am, at all, concerned with a private right
of navigation. I am concerned principally and, of course, in subsequent trial would
be what I would develop from, that there was a reason why the public right of
navigation is germane to my case; and I would argue as to the unaffected riparian
rights as to they being objectable. The private right of navigation, in so far as there
are any that were created by the Act, is not important, for so long as, the public
right of navigation is concerned.
JUDGE MANN: Well the answer to the question raised by issue one is fairly dogmatic
about the private right. It says nothing about the public right and so it, by necessary
implication, the public right continues to subsist. In so far as it can be exercised.
So there is not a problem is there?
MR MOORE: Well the problem I would say, My Lord, would be in terms of whether or
not it is found that I am right on issue one or-
JUDGE MANN: -if during the further conduct of this proceeding, you will be arguing that
the public right gives you the rights that you wish to claim and assert, then this
4
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
6/23
e
result does not affect you. If all what you want to do in the further conduct of these
proceedings is to assert a private right, then this answer does affect you because it
has gone as a consequence of the 1968 Act. I think that that will be common
ground.
MR MOORE: I understand that, My Lord. But there is the question of costs in this case
as to whether I have succeeded in issue one or not.
JUDGE MANN: Yes, I follow that. But I do not think that Mr Stoner has argued that the
public right had gone.
MR MOORE: Well he was doing so much.
JUDGE MANN: I do not think he was. You can point to how he put it that it had gone.
He might have said, during the course of the proceedings, that it would not be
exercisable, fully exercised because there will be those new cuts where it could not
be exercise because it did not run through those new cuts.
MR MOORE: Well there was a multi-layered argument from Mr Stoner.
JUDGE MANN: Yes, of course there was because that is the way one would have
expected him to go about it.
MR MOORE: Correct, My Lord, but I cant say more than I desired to have the answer to
issue one, specifically embracing all the I have had to say, yes, those rights
described belonging in Section 43, that were described as pre-existing must,
necessarily, be unaffected by the Transport Act; even though there are such rights,
as might be private rights, as might have been created-
JUDGE MANN: Yes but the way I have answered the question, leaves those rights in
existence. The only right that I have said has been repealed by the Transport Act is
the right created or conferred by the 1793 Act, which is the private right.
MR MOORE: I beg your pardon, My Lord?
JUDGE MANN: -is the private right.
MR MOORE: Yes.
5
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
7/23
e
JUDGE MANN: There was never any argument before me that any right, which was not
created or conferred by the 1793 Act, had been repealed.
MR MOORE: Well, my positive arguments before you, My Lord, were to the effect that
there always had been a public right of navigation and that that still continues and
that there were freedom from charges.
JUDGE MANN: But freedom from charges has got nothing to do with the pre-existing
rights. It has got everything to do with the private right.
MR MOORE: Well, My Lord, it was described as pre-existing.
JUDGE MANN: No, I think if you read the Section properly. Let us go back to first
principles, the public right of navigation does not entail paying for that right, unless
there is some legislation which requires a payment to be made. So far as the
1793 Act is concerned it created, put it this way, it empowered the canal company
to impose charges. So that was a charge super-imposed on the private right,
except in relation to those exempted from paying those charges, which were those
who had the benefit of the private right, newly created.
MR MOORE: I follow the argument, My Lord, I would dispute that.
JUDGE MANN: I can follow that you dispute it, but if the right created is the right which
has gone. No other rights have gone, as a consequence of the Transport Act
operating on the 1793 Act. That is the substance of the question, how has the 1968
Act operated on any right created or conferred by the 1793 Act, because that is the
only way it can operate.
MR MOORE: Yes in most terms, My Lord, I have no argument with your phraseology. I
am basically, and probably repeating myself here, saying that it is only by implication
agreeing with the positive aspects that I was arguing for. Perhaps I should wait
until the question of the costs comes up as to whether that makes any difference
because it seems to me, reading through what you had said and listening to you
now, what I saw it as to an answer to issue one, is answered in my favour.
6
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
8/23
e
Whereas, on the issue of BWs authority, it is against me.
JUDGE MANN: Let us come to it when the question of costs is raised, because I see
where you are leading and I quite understand that.
MR STONER: My Lord, on the fourth paragraph one, obviously, my proposal was as per
paragraph one. I have heard what Mr Moore has had to say, I think it is primarily a
cost point not a reform of the order and in my respectful submission, paragraph one
not only is, have I lifted that unashamedly, from the end of My Lords judgment but
the reason for that is that that reflects My Lords judgment, in the way My Lord has
approached the question.
JUDGE MANN: Yes, there would be no difficulty in supplementing the consequences of
that finding.
MR STONER: And, obviously, the judgment would have to be considered in the context
of these being preliminary issues.
JUDGE MANN: Yes, well I must say, I was a bit baffled by how it could be a preliminary
issue and the case still continue.
MR STONER: Well the reason, in fact, in paragraph two that I have simply asked that
there be a case management conference is that the pleadings were obviously
somewhat voluminous in this case but our initial reaction is that it may well be the
case, where our initial reaction is that there is nothing left in Mr Moores claim. It
wont, as My Lord says, strips it back to its bare bones, its that my clients werent
entitled to serve Section 8 notices on the vessels and seeks a declaratory injunction
relief accordingly. We say, in light of these preliminary issues, there is nothing left.
And, indeed, that is why we have pushed for the preliminary issues so that all of the
other issues fall away.
Therefore, we are asking for a CMC so that we can actually reflect that it may well
be that the appropriate course for my client is to simply make an application seeking
a dismissal of the claim, in judgment on his counterclaim. But that is not a matter
7
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
9/23
e
for today, but certainly-
JUDGE MANN: Well, it is something that I could do. I am not inviting you to do it
because I think it would be proper and sensible for Mr Moore to have the
opportunity to reflect on the way this case is going. Especially in light of what he
has just said.
MR STONER: Yes, because certainly it is my understanding, looking back at the pleadings
that this perhaps is edging onto perhaps a costs point. When one looks at the
particulars of the claim, Mr Moores pleading is very clear, the original pleadings
are plain. He says there was certain public rights of navigation and riparian rights
and they have not been affected by the 1793 Act. In public rights of navigation it
has always my clients pleading position, that in respect of the public right of
navigation that does not extend to a right to permanently moor.
Now that is obviously pregnant with, an acceptance that there is a public right of
navigation but saying that, that does not assist Mr Moore.
JUDGE MANN: That is, as I understand, you put it at the hearing. There is a concession
that the public right of navigation exists to that extent but that it does not allow
permanent mooring, or anything which could be described as.
MR STONER: And is subject to-
JUDGE MANN: -or shall we say, not rightfully the exercise of a riparian right.
MR STONER: Yes, and it is subject to on British Waterway regulation being the
regulatory authority, as has also been established. But just dealing purely with the
terms of the Order I left for that I respectfully suggest that I understand
Mr Moore may disagree, but that is a slightly different matter. But the form of the
Order paragraph one accurately reflects My Lords judgment and should stand.
JUDGE MANN: Mr Moore, you have heard that. Is there anything you wish to add to the
debate about paragraph one of the draft minute of order.
MR MOORE: Yes, My Lord. It does I believe need to be slightly clarified and I have
8
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
10/23
e
obviously been at fault in being able to specifically say exactly why there are reasons
for a public right of navigation that, nothing to do with the actual mooring.
Because the Section 8 notices are basically relying on one or both of two basis.
One of them is with the craft being unlicensed and the other is being on an
unlicensed mooring. And the issue of a public right of navigation has got nothing
to do with the actual mooring issue at all. It has to do with the need to pay for a
licence to be on public waters.
JUDGE MANN: Well I understand your point but that is something I think that you will
have to take up with the CMC because that will be a basis upon which you will
explain to The Master that there is something left in these proceedings. Do you
follow what I am saying?
MR MOORE: Yes.
JUDGE MANN: So, whereas I could dismiss the proceedings today, it appears to me, I am
not going to do that. I am going to defer to the draft minute of order and direct that
there be a CMC. If anything arises from that you can bring it back to me but I hope
it would not.
MR MOORE: My Lord, there are other-
JUDGE MANN: Well I shall make an order in terms of paragraph one and I shall make an
order in terms of paragraph two. There was then the question of a small
amendment, which I have dealt with at the time. So paragraph three of the draft
properly deals with that. The costs thrown away will be paid by the British
Waterways Board, but I imagine that will not be very much, if anything at all. There
is then the question of costs for the preliminary issues, which you have already
started arguing. Do you wish to say anything more about that?
MR MOORE: I dont think so, My Lord, other than I perhaps wanted to clarify that, in
those areas within your judgment, where it appears to me that you have somewhat
gone beyond the preliminary issues to determine whether or not the moorings were
9
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
11/23
e
legal or not and then come back and said, well in that case, the public rights of
navigation etc. arent really relevant.
If I did not formerly request permission to appeal against such items, within your
judgment, that arent appearing in the order but are within your judgment. Would
that be necessary, is that sustainable?
JUDGE MANN: I hope the order is only that I get to decide the issues directed to be
determined, that what it is. No doubt, the judgment will be influential later, but I
have only decided those questions.
MR MOORE: Well thank you My Lord, that makes that much clearer yes.
JUDGE MANN: So on those questions; it appears to me, that you have not succeeded on
the preliminary issues. You have succeeded, in so far as it remained an issue in
establishing that public navigation rights continue to subsist. But, as I understood
it, it was not being contested that those public navigation rights did continue to
subsist.
MR MOORE: That is putting me in a slight-
JUDGE MANN: I am not intending to put you in a spot, but that is how I understood the
submissions.
MR MOORE: I am grateful My Lord. I am merely, elucidating[?] the fact that I find
myself in a slight quandary as to what my reaction should be in that discussion on it,
with the issue one, is in accord as I would see it, with what I have been wanting to
argue and yet it has been found against me.
JUDGE MANN: One thing you did want to argue was that no charges could be imposed
under the Act, as a consequence of the 1793 Act.
MR MOORE: And-
JUDGE MANN: And it follows from the determination that there is no exoneration from
any charges which the regulatory body can impose because the 1793 Act was being
that part of it, and in fact all of it, so far as rights are concerned has been repealed.
10
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
12/23
e
So on that part you have lost.
MR MOORE: Well, that would be implicit-
JUDGE MANN: It is implicit. But that was what you recon was important to you thought
was it not.
MR MOORE: It is My Lord. But it is only, I would submit, only implicit in the
understanding of which private rights were granted as opposed to confirmed.
JUDGE MANN: The only right which carried the right to exoneration from charges, which
otherwise would have been imposed under the 1793 Act, was the one that was
created.
MR MOORE: And, as I do believe, I did bring out in the hearing My Lord, the initial
British Transport Act did acknowledge that this Section was to be free, which in my
argument demonstrates that parliament in 1947 did so agree that these should
continue.
JUDGE MANN: In 1968, anything that arises from the 1793 Act affecting navigation of
the Waterway ceased to be effect in statute law. What did not cease was any
consequences of the exercise of the public right.
MR MOORE: But, my Lord, in the 1968 Act it said, as regards charges, it confirmed the
fact where charges had been previously forbidden, that they should stay so. Which
as late as amendment in 2005 remains on the statute books.
JUDGE MANN: It is a very short Section is it not?
MR MOORE: Yes.
JUDGE MANN: And what it says is that any rights created by a private Act would be
repealed. And a right that is created is a right not to be charged in relation to the
exercise of the private right.
MR MOORE: There are two separate Sections that we are talking about, My Lord.
JUDGE MANN: Which one are you talking about?
MR MOORE: I am talking about in the 1968 Act where it refers to charges, which was
11
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
13/23
e
quite a separate issue from the rights of public and private rights of navigation.
JUDGE MANN: Section 57?
MR MOORE: I would have to rely on Your Lordships memory, My Lord.
JUDGE MANN: That is the regulatory provision, which empowers the company to impose
penalties and fines of various kinds, which would not affect the private right,
exercise the private right.
MR MOORE: No, but it would affect the ability to make charges for the exercise of a
public right of navigation.
JUDGE MANN: Well, I do not think so. Because matters of the exercise of the public
rights is all dealt with in subsequent in relation to British Waterways Acts, in
particular the 1995 Act or is the 1975 Act. Those are the Acts which impose the
regulatory regime which now subsists.
Anyway I do not think there is going to be profit in this. Maybe that is something
you will have to take up at the CMC because it looks to me that you are going to be
arguing again that the Section 8 notices were unlawful because they ignored the fact
that there is some statutory provision somewhere, which exempts you and the boats
that you are interested in, in some way, from having to pay and have licences.
Then Mr Stoner will look at the judgment and say, well the private right has gone
and the public right of way subsists because I did not seek to challenge that it did
subsist. And there will be an argument about whether an Act, which is no longer in
force, to the extent that it created private rights, helps you out. That is what will
happen at the CMC and I think that is probably right is it not Mr Stoner?
MR MOORE: One thing, My Lord, if as is coming out in this discussion, I am going to be
constrained by the findings in-
JUDGE MANN: Well the only way in which this will constrain you is that the private right
has gone. And that means the whole and every incident of the private right, which
would include the exoneration of any charges.
12
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
14/23
e
MR MOORE: Including of the rights that had existed previously.
JUDGE MANN: No, only the private right because the judgment does not say that the
public right has gone. It says quite to the contrary, it says it is still there. All that
happened was that parallel rights were created, even in so far as necessary, to make
sure that the canal can be used, in particular, by adjoining and neighbouring owners
between Becks' Mill and the mouth of the Thames, that is what the judgment is
saying and that is how the answer was arrived at.
MR MOORE: Well then in, without-
JUDGE MANN: -the rest of the issues are perfectly straightforward, you do not have any
problem with those?
MR MOORE: Obviously, I disagree with issue three but with issues two and four I have
got no problem with that whatsoever. I do not even, necessarily, have a problem
with issue three either, as I said at the-
JUDGE MANN: -well I would not go any further if I was you, it is there and, unless and
until it is successfully appealed. You can argue about it before the CMC is to
whether that stops you from continuing with your proceedings, but it is there, as a
determination. So if you start saying to me now that you do not have a problem
with it, then that is not going to help you is it?
MR MOORE: Thank you My Lord. But really what I am looking at now, from how I can
proceed, if you like in a practical way, is whether or not I need to list point to apply
for legal aid in more effective representation to which I am entitled.
JUDGE MANN: You are one of the fortunate few.
MR MOORE: I do not know whether it is necessarily fortunate My Lord.
JUDGE MANN: Well it is fortunate to be entitled to have funded legal assistance, because
most people are being deprived of that, over many years of government cut backs.
Certainly, in civil jurisdiction.
MR MOORE: Yes, My Lord. Well obviously apart from anything else, merely this affects
13
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
15/23
e
my own [inaudible], if you like. And the question would be whether or not it was
necessary to ask leave to appeal and whether, just on the judgment now, and/or the
cost issues, in order to-
JUDGE MANN: Well I will determine the question of costs now. Do you want to say
anything about costs now?
MR STONER: My Lord no, I had come prepared through the pleadings but, in my
submission, the costs of the preliminary issues should be dealt with today and the
court obviously should look at it from the perspective of who has won the
preliminary issues.
In my submission, there is no doubt that my client has won issues two, three and
four. The public right of navigation is in fact also an element of part one, in so far
as, as I mentioned earlier, Mr Moores originally pleaded case was to identify that
there were public rights of navigation and riparian rights and those had not been
affected by the 1793 Act.
Now, as a consequence of the judgment in the other action of Mr Dowling QC,
before last December. The riparian rights issue took a very different form.
Obviously, in My Lords judgment that doesnt assist Mr Moore in this case. The
public right of navigation point, the core point was, that it doesnt include a right to
permanently moor. To a large extent that had fallen away before the hearing but the
clear import of My Lords judgment is that therefore, looking at this case, what are
the rights that may be relevant. There was the one right and My Lord has
determined that and that has gone against Mr Moore. Of course, certain arguments
that I advance, My Lord objects in the judgment, that is the nature of litigation but
that doesnt mean that my clients have not been successful and should not be
entitled to their costs.
They have been brought to court, having served some notices, and a whole array of
issues have been placed before them that they are forced to deal with and the
14
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
16/23
e
preliminary issues of an expensive exercise. I hope a very useful exercise, but I
think there will certainly, if the action does go forward and My Lord has already
heard my initial reaction on that, but certainly if the action does go forward it would
be on a very much more focused point or points. And the Court should reflect that
in an award of costs at this stage of the preliminary issues, in my submission.
JUDGE MANN: Very well. I have heard the submissions of Mr Moore and Mr Stoner
about costs and the effect so far as the determination that I have made on the issues,
if any, which continue to subsist in the litigation as a whole. It appears to me the
extent it was an issue whether the public right of navigation continued to subsist
notwithstanding the Transport Act 1968 that Mr Moore has won on that point, but
that he has lost on all the other points and issues.
Issue one took up the bulk of the time and evolves[?] in the argument of his
preliminary issues. And although issues three and four were important, they really
did not take up an enormous amount of time. Much of the time spent was
examining the historical background of the 1793 Act and the statutory sequences
chronologically thereafter which plainly involved an examination of how the private
right impacted on a public right and as to why there needed to be a private right in
all the circumstances.
It is always very difficult to try to calculate out, in a particular or specific way,
where costs should fall. But in my judgment, the balance favours an order that
Mr Moore should pay the costs of the preliminary issues as to four-fifths, so that he
takes the benefit of one-fifth of the costs himself. So, that is the order I would like.
MR STONER: My Lord, inaudible. The only other part of the order I sought. Some of
the double-barrelled aspects of the costs was the payment on account in respect of
that costs. There is no schedule because this isnt a summary assessment but those
instructing me have provided me with figures.
JUDGE MANN: Have they provided Mr Moore with figures?
15
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
17/23
e
MR STONER: I have not provided them to Mr Moore, in effect, I have received an email
of what my fees are. There is a print out of Shoosmiths fees. Those total 44,000.
The way they are calculated is from April of last year, so all the costs have been
incurred in the action after the Order for these preliminary issues.
My Lord, taking account of the fact, for example, my costs, I had a conference
down in Brentford and attended a site view and can well understand on a cost judge
argument that that was relevant for the action as a whole as well as the preliminary
issues but it certainly it very safe to therefore say that the costs of 40,000, that is
exclusive of VAT my client is registered for VAT and so can reclaim that VAT. In
fact the sum I am instructed to ask for, on account, the usual rule that I would
submit would be a starting point of 50% but in fact the sum I ask for, on account, is
10,000.
JUDGE MANN: Is there any pressing need for the British Waterways Board to have these
costs now?
MR STONER: There is the pressing need in the sense of, well there are two points, the
first point in my submission is the CPR does make the point that if the court makes
an award of costs, there should be a payment on account. The second point is that,
of course, the costs British Waterways are largely public funded. The costs that are
incurred in these proceedings are therefore taken away from the running of the
Waterways and it is constantly a battle in press cutting and funding etc. and this is a
substantial sum so, in that respect, in my submission, my client should have a
payment on account.
JUDGE MANN: Mr Moore, I do not think that will be very attractive to you, that idea,
that you should pay 10,000 despite the clear desire on Mr Stoners clients part to
try to accommodate you by reducing the amount that it asks to by a fairly
considerable amount. I have not seen the schedules; I do not know what the costs
will eventually come to. But I can well understand that they will be quite
16
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
18/23
e
considerable. That is the way of things unfortunately with litigation. What do you
say about having to pay 10,000 within a period of, well the suggestion is, early
April? I would not be minded to make an order of that kind. I would be minded to
make an order, if I do make one, that there be no payment, on account, until 28
days after the CMC has taken place?
MR MOORE: Well, My Lord, putting things at its simplest, it doesnt make a great deal of
difference what the time frame is because I-
JUDGE MANN: -because you cannot pay it.
MR MOORE: Because I cannot pay it, no. So it is-
JUDGE MANN: I know what you are saying and I understand it.
I shall make an order, Mr Stoner, that there be a payment on account which takes
into account your clients offer but which also takes into account that your client
will only get four-fifths of his costs. I shall then knock off a bit, so whereas it would
have been 8000, it will now be 6000, on account, which is as low as, in my
judgment, I can make it consistent with the practice and the practice directions.
And that is to be paid by a date 28 days after the determination of the issues on the
CMC which will be on a date to be fixed. So I cannot tell you when it will be that
you will have to pay but it certainly will not be in the next couple of months.
MR MOORE: My Lord, thank you. It gives me some degree-
JUDGE MANN: -it does not help you very much but it takes into account the special
difficulties which you have.
MR MOORE: Thank you My Lord, yes. In this respect, if it proved necessary and I
needed that as a part of the whole of this to request permission to appeal the
judgment. Is that something that comes up in the CMC, or is that something that-
JUDGE MANN: No, if you wish to protect your position for the purposes of appeal, then
you should ask for leave to appeal the judgment now and if you wish to appeal only
part of it then you need to say which part of it you wish to leave to appeal. You
17
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
19/23
e
should do it now.
MR MOORE: Well, then may I formally do so My Lord.
JUDGE MANN: Yes, you can. Do you wish to appeal the whole of the judgment or just
certain parts of it?
MR MOORE: Just that part of it in issue one, regarding the scope of the private rights.
JUDGE MANN: Well, is this what you wish to appeal, that the private right of navigation
which was granted by the Section 43 of the Act was repealed by the 1968 Act?
MR MOORE: No, My Lord, because I am not concerning myself with private rights of
navigation but rather with the rights that were described in Section 43 pertaining to
the owner and occupiers of-
JUDGE MANN: Then you do not need to appeal that because I have not made a finding,
other than that which I have said I have.
MR MOORE: Well the implications of it.
JUDGE MANN: If you appeal the determination under issue one, then there is nothing to
appeal. Do you see what I mean? The appeal will have no content because I have
not determined that the other rights of which you speak have been repealed. I think
Mr Stoner will agree with that. So, if you ignore the answer for a moment, what is
it that you wish to appeal?
MR MOORE: Well then, My Lord-
JUDGE MANN: Do you see my difficulty with that? I am trying to help you.
MR MOORE: I am very appreciative of that-
JUDGE MANN: -I will give you leave of appeal if you persist but I do not want you to ask
for leave to appeal the answer for the private right of navigation as repealed, if you
think it has been repealed.
MR MOORE: I do not know whether this is appropriate, but you have been helpful, if I
ask for leave to appeal say for example on issue three, which is the one that would
then effect, in your judgment, the various issues that we have been talking about. Is
18
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
20/23
e
that something that I have to follow through if, in a case management conference, it
is determined that it is not necessary-
JUDGE MANN: -you do not have to pursue an appeal, but there may be some costs of
discontinuing an appeal. But if you do it quickly and great costs have not been
incurred, but I cannot tell you what would be incurred, I am afraid, and Mr Stoner is
better able than me to do that, after reflection. The costs would not be very high, so
you can protect your position by asking for leave on issue three, if you like, and
then discontinue the appeal before Mr Stoners client has incurred costs.
And I think Mr Stoner will try to help you because that is his obligation as counsel
where there is a Litigant in Person by pointing out to you what costs might be
incurred and at which stages or leave it too long before you decide you are not
going to go ahead. Is that something you are comfortable with, Mr Stoner?
MR STONER: My Lord, I have always indicated to Mr Moore throughout these
proceedings and, indeed, the ones before that if he has any questions, I will do my
best to assist. If it assists, whilst I am on my feet, if Mr Moore does seek
permission, obviously permission can only be granted if My Lord is satisfied that
that part of the judgment is wrong.
JUDGE MANN: Well the judge can grant permission if he thinks that there is a possibility
that he is wrong.
MR STONER: Yes, well the grounds would be wrong or there was some other reasons,
there is no other particular public reason here. So, in my submission, because the
court of appeal will have to look at the judgment or the order in fact, of course, it is
the Order that is appealed, and say they can only allow an appeal if the order was
wrong-
JUDGE MANN: I had better explain to Mr Moore what will happen if I refuse leave. He
would then have to make a paper application to the court of appeal, which would
not involve costs, it would just involve your time and running around making an
19
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
21/23
e
application. So if you were to ask for leave on three, you ought to try to satisfy me
that there is something in the judgment, which is arguably wrong on that question.
MR MOORE: Yes, thank you My Lord.
JUDGE MANN: I would not try too hard because it might mean going back over
everything we have gone over before.
MR MOORE: Well perhaps just keeping it as short as possible, My Lord, there was
nothing really in the content of your judgment leading up to this that actually
considered the historical continuity of authority over this particular section and you
have not actually examined, in this judgment, you have simply decided that it is a
logical sequence from the 1947 Act onwards that British Waterways would be the
statutory navigation authority because this section is comprised within their
undertakings. And there has been no implant in your judgment here, of the fact that
there are other statutory authorities over the navigation that do exist today.
JUDGE MANN: Well, of course-
MR MOORE: -so there is a question over, as I have only briefly touched upon it in the
hearing, as to what is actually meant by the navigation authority, what is being
controlled? Certainly, as I have said in the hearing, this area is within their
undertakings. The question of, over what do they have authority? Is something that
needs to be particularised perhaps is the word.
So, which is an area of, My Lord, where the question of public rights of navigation,
come into it. Not that, as we have seen from the information that I have produced
in the course of the hearing, that there are areas of public right of navigation that fall
within BWs undertakings. I am not quite sure of what those other areas are but
they are regularised.
But it does put, as the various government publications and British Waterways
publications have acknowledged, a limitation on the powers that they have on the
non-tidal ridges, non-tidal canals. So it is something that has not been properly
20
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
22/23
e
explored, My Lord, and as it does affect the case, I believe it is right that those
issues are aired.
JUDGE MANN: Thank you. So that is on issue three?
MR MOORE: On issue three, yes.
JUDGE MANN: Well I am going to refuse the appeal, Mr Moore. Your base of premise
is that I have not addressed the issue adequately with sufficiently reasoned judgment
[inaudible] by specifically addressing the series of legislation dealing with navigation
rights and charging rights. I did, however say, in the judgment, that I was taken
through all the Acts very carefully and that I have concluded issue three in the way
that I did. But as I say, I looked at the [inaudible] Act, the Port of London
Authority Act and all of the legislation very carefully before drawing to that
conclusion which I took not to be particularly hotly contested. But it is your right
to ask the Court of appeal for leave, as I have refused it, and so be it. Those are my
reasons for refusing on that issue.
MR MOORE: Thank you, My Lord.
JUDGE MANN: Thank you. Anything else?
MR STONER: My Lord, I think that is it on the order; the only point that perhaps I should
reflect on before My Lord formerly makes the order. Paragraph two: I have said
the case management conference should be listed for 30 minutes. I rather wonder,
in the light of this morning whether 30 minutes might be inadequate-
JUDGE MANN: -no, it will not be adequate.
MR STONER: So I wonder, in fact, it should certainly be an hour possibly two hours?
JUDGE MANN: Well we have taken an hour discussing various issues.
MR STONER: Yes, in fairness to The Master, who is going to asked perhaps to-
JUDGE MANN: -I think, in fairness to The Master, it should be an hour and a half CMC.
So you alter the Minute of Order to that effect, so that Mr Moore has the fullest
possible opportunity, within the limits of reasonableness and court time and so on,
21
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
7/29/2019 Moore v BWB, Handing Down Proceedings, March 2009
23/23
e
to make the points he wishes to make.
MR STONER: One hour, My Lord?
JUDGE MANN: One and half hours. Which I think is pretty well the length of time we
have [inaudible]. I might be wrong about that. I found it fascinating and deeply
interesting and I was considerably enlightened by your submissions; thank you very
much. Mr Stoner, I [inaudible]. Thank you very much.
Court rise.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Recommended