header-logo header-logo

Profit à prendre

29 April 2016
Issue: 7696 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Lynn Shellfish Ltd and another v Loose and another [2016] UKSC 14, [2016] All ER (D) 75 (Apr)

The Supreme Court allowed in part an appeal regarding the geographical extent of a prescriptive right of a several fishery. If a right over land, the identity of which shifted, could be the subject of an express grant, then it followed that there was no reason why that should not apply equally to a right over land obtained by prescription. The seaward boundary of the area subject to the right was the lowest astronomical tide mark from time to time. The area did not include sandbanks that had become attached to the foreshore within living memory either because the right applied to the foreshore as constituted from time to time or through the doctrine of accretion.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll