Loose v Lynn Shellfish Ltd & Ors
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK
- LORD JUSTICE KITCHIN
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Tort Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case centered on the extent of a private fishery held by the Le Strange family on the east coast of the Wash. The primary legal issues involved the seaward boundary of the fishery and the applicability of the doctrine of accretion to determine the extent of the fishery. The trial court held that the fishery extended to the mean low-water mark of spring tides (MLWS), but the appeal found that it extended to the lowest astronomical tide (LAT). The doctrine of accretion did not apply, and the rights extended over a movable area subject to historical entitlement.
Judgment
Lord Justice Moore-Bick :
Background
These appeals arise out of the latest in a series of battles over a private (or “several”) fishery situated on the east coast of the Wash. Since 1761 the Le Strange family as Lords of the Manors of Heacham and Snettisham have claimed the right to take shellfish from the foreshore adjacent to the two manors and by exercising such a right over many years have established a private fishery by prescription. Although initially disputed, the existence of the fishery was eventually conceded by the present appellants, but its seaward extent remained in dispute and formed the principal issue for the judge to decide. It is a question which has troubled the courts on more than one occasion.
The fishery was let to the respondent, Mr. John Loose, for a period of three years from 6 th April 1969 under a lease dated 22 nd July 1970 granted by Hamon Le Strange, the predecessor in title of the Part 20 defendant, Mr. Michael le Strange Meakin, who is also one of the respondents to the appeals. It is convenient to refer to his interest and that of his predecessors as “the estate”, as the judge did below. The lease expired in April 1972 and Mr. Loose has since then held over on the same terms. Fishing for cockles was once carried out entirely by hand at low tide, but during the latter part of the 20 th century methods were developed for fishing from boats by mechanical means known as ‘suction dredging’. It is now possible, therefore, to take cockles from the area of the foreshore at times when it is not exposed by the tide. The appellants (“the fishermen”) are owners of local fishing vessels. Mr. Loose claimed that they had unlawfully interfered with his rights by fishing for cockles in the area of the private fishery between July and September 2007. He brought a claim for damages reflecting the value of the cockles which he said they had taken. The fishermen denied that the area in which they had been working formed part of the private fishery, which gave rise to the dispute about its extent.
The matter was tried by Sir William Blackburne over a period of six days in November 2012. He held that the private fishery extended seawards as far as the mean low-water mark of spring tides (“MLWS”) and that the fishermen had been fishing in the area of the private fishery, as Mr. Loose alleged. This is the fishermen’s appeal against that decision. They say that the private fishery does not extend to some of the areas which are now ex