Attorney-General ex rel Yorkshire Derwent Trust Ltd and another v Brotherton and others
Language: English Series: Weekly Law Reports ; (1991) 2 WLR 1-15(15)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: CA 31 July 1990 An originating summons by Attorney-General at the relation of the Trust and Malton Town Council seeking relief against Brotherton (B) and nine other defendants and the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, by way of a declaration that a public right of navigation subsisted along the course of the River Derwent over along and past the land of which B and each of them respectively claimed to be the owners exercisable by all members of the public in any type or class of vessel capable of navigating the same. The charity and council wished to make the river navigable so that the public would be able to enjoy it as a recreational facility. On the preliminary issue whether a right of navigation was equivalent to a public right of way so as to be capable of being acquired by a long user under Rights of Way Act 1932 , the judge held that on the proper construction of the Act, a right of way over land did not include a public right of navigation along a river. On appeal by the plaintiffs,| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS43961 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 44462-1001 |
CA 31 July 1990 An originating summons by Attorney-General at the relation of the Trust and Malton Town Council seeking relief against Brotherton (B) and nine other defendants and the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, by way of a declaration that a public right of navigation subsisted along the course of the River Derwent over along and past the land of which B and each of them respectively claimed to be the owners exercisable by all members of the public in any type or class of vessel capable of navigating the same. The charity and council wished to make the river navigable so that the public would be able to enjoy it as a recreational facility. On the preliminary issue whether a right of navigation was equivalent to a public right of way so as to be capable of being acquired by a long user under Rights of Way Act 1932 , the judge held that on the proper construction of the Act, a right of way over land did not include a public right of navigation along a river. On appeal by the plaintiffs,