|| All ER (D) 165 (Jul)
||Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
||Benedict Sefi (instructed by Bower & Bailey) for the claimant.
||Dr Roger Smithers (instructed by the Solicitor to the Environment Agency) for the defendant.
||13 July 2005
Water and watercourses - River bank - River bed - Erection of structure - Moorings - Licence for structure - Removal notice - Whether legitimate expectation that licence would not be required - Whether abuse of power to resile on legitimate expectation - Whether time for compliance with notice was abuse of power - Thames Conservancy Act 1932.
In the circumstances, while the claimant had a legitimate expectation, that he would be able to retain the landing stages without a licence and without a risk of removal, it would not be an abuse of power to allow the defendant to resile from it. However, in the instant case, the period of 28 days was plainly too short for the claimant to comply with the removal notice after such a long period of time. Such a period was not sufficient to avoid a finding of an abuse of power by the defendant. A reasonable period would be one year.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary