The London Borough of Richmond on Thames v Alistair Trotman
[2023] EWHC 2461 (KB)
The Mayor and Burgess of the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames v Alistair Trotman
9 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 9 (KB)
High Court
A man moored his houseboat too close to a riverbank, blocking others from using it. The court made him move it because it was a public nuisance, but didn't add a 'get arrested if you don't' clause to the order.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (Richmond-upon-Thames Council) sought a prohibitory injunction against Defendant (Alistair Trotman) to prevent mooring vessels near its Thames riverbanks.
- •Defendant moored his houseboat, 'Kupe', near the riverbank, using anchors and poles.
- •Defendant was declared bankrupt, and his trustee secured the 'Kupe'.
- •Defendant was arrested twice for allegedly breaching an interim injunction.
- •Claimant argued trespass and breach of byelaws; Defendant argued lawful navigation and reasonable use of common land.
- •Interim injunction granted, but its wording was criticized.
Legal Principles
Public right of navigation on the Thames (including anchoring for a reasonable time) is governed by the Thames Conservancy Act 1932, subject to byelaws.
Thames Conservancy Act 1932, section 79
Local authority byelaws, made under the Local Government Act 1972, can regulate mooring on land owned by the council.
Local Government Act 1972, section 235
Permanent obstruction of a navigable river is a public nuisance.
Couper and others v Albion Properties Ltd [2013] EWHC 2993 (Ch.)
Riparian owners do not have an absolute right to permanently moor vessels.
Moor v. British Waterways Board [2013] EWCA Civ. 73
A local authority can bring an action in trespass and nuisance.
Local Government Act 1972, section 222; Cambridge City Council v Traditional Cambridge Tours Limited [2018] EWHC 1304 (QB)
Courts should exercise caution in granting civil injunctions where adequate criminal penalties exist.
Stoke on Trent City Council v B&Q (Retail) Ltd [1984] AC 754
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life) may be engaged where a vessel is someone's home, but only in exceptional cases.
Akerman v London Borough of Richmond [2017] EWHC 84 (Admin)
Power of arrest can be attached to an injunction if the conduct causes nuisance or involves violence or a significant risk of harm (Police and Justice Act 2006).
Police and Justice Act 2006, section 27
Outcomes
Interim injunction varied; final prohibitory injunction granted.
Defendant's mooring caused a public nuisance by obstructing access to the riverbank for other users. Trespass was not sufficiently proven.
Application for power of arrest refused.
Insufficient evidence of violence or risk of harm to justify a power of arrest.
Claimant awarded costs.
Claimant succeeded in its claim.
Similar Cases
The London Borough of Richmond v Trotman
[2023] EWHC 2967 (KB)
Alistair Trotman v The Environment Agency
[2024] EWHC 825 (Admin)
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Richmond v Alistair Trotman
[2024] EWHC 2145 (KB)
The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield v Charles Snell & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1206 (KB)