Plans for major development — Land bordering canal — Canal constructed by virtue of private Act of Parliament in 1793 — Whether present owners of land entitled to exercise rights under that Act — Issue raised as preliminary point — Whether rights limited to landowners holding land on both sides of canal — High Court holding that Act not restricted to original owners — Rights also applicable to single-bank owners
The dispute concerned land bordering part of the Grand Union Canal. The stretch in question started in the vicinity of junction 15A of the M1 motorway and ran north and then east, close to Northampton, joining the River Nene. By the Transport Act 1962, the British Waterways Board were given responsibility in relation to internal waterways. The plaintiffs (all of whom owned or had rights to acquire land in the area) wished to participate in a major development for uses including office, light industrial, storage and distribution, on land between the M1 and Northampton. The development as planned would involve the construction of two new road bridges and the widening of one existing bridge over the canal. At stake was whether the plaintiffs could carry out those works without the Board having a power of veto or whether they were in a position to exact the full commercial price for their co-operation. The Grand Junction Canal Act 1793 incorporated the proprietors and conferred on that company (predecessor in title to the present Board) power to construct the canal. It provided for: the compulsory acquisition of land by the company upon compensation being paid, and the rights, powers and obligations of both the company and the owners of land adjacent to the canal both during and after its construction, in particular in section 79. The plaintiffs argued that Parliament could not have intended the Board (as the company’s eventual successor) to have a “ransom strip” unrelated to their needs in constructing and running the canal. The Board submitted that the original owners had been fully compensated for the loss of their land when it was acquired two centuries ago. Section 79 provided that: “if the owners or occupiers of any lands or others hereditaments through which the said canal … shall be made … do … at any times hereafter, choose to erect other gates, stiles bridges, passages … trenches … then it shall be lawful for all … to make … at their own costs … the like constructions … in, over or near to the said canal … as occasion shall require …”.
Held Terms of the Act were not restricted to original owners.
1. Section 79 was not a bonus section applicable only to the special class of double riparian owners, ie a landowner with land on both sides of the canal.
2. Most of the terms specified, ie “gates, stiles, bridges” etc were just as appropriate for a single-bank owner as for a double riparian owner.
3. There was a governing principle that a private Act of the present kind was to be construed against its promoters.
4. The argument that the rights were granted only to the original owners and occupiers of land taken for the canal and did not pass to their successors in title was also to be rejected. It gave insufficient weight to the emphatic words “at any time … hereafter” in section 79. The section conferred statutory rights exercisable by those persons who from time to time fell within the class described in the statute.
Terence Etherton QC and Jonathan Karas (instructed by Debenham & Co) appeared for the plaintiff developers; Anthony Scrivener QC and John Whittaker (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson) appeared for the British Waterways Board.
