Significant Mooring Rights Decision handed down by High Court

In Jaqueline Casey & Ors v Environment Agency [2026] EWHC 178 (KB), the High Court (Bourne J) recently upheld the decision of HHJ Simpkiss to grant a possession order to the Environment Agency in circumstances where a number of boats were said to be trespassing above the bed of the Thames (which the Environment Agency owned) but where ownership of the bank of the Thames (to which the boats were moored) was contested.

Numerous grounds of appeal were advanced by the appellant boaters covering, amongst other matters:

(a) the extent of navigation rights on the Thames,

(b) the rights of those who claimed ownership of riparian land,

(c) whether the possession order would amount to a disproportionate interference with the boaters’ article 8 rights,

(d) whether a possession order covering more than just the land above which the boats were moored was inappropriate as such orders are in rem and would inappropriately affect the rights of other boats who may be in the area,

(e) the public law duty of candour in possession claims and whether the Environment Agency was motivated by an improper purpose to secure its claim over the river bank land or whether it had acted ultra vires its powers in the Environment Act 1995, and

(f) the appropriateness of declaratory relief in possession claims.

The judgment will be of interesting reading to anyone involved in the regulation of boats on rivers and watercourses. The Judge’s consideration at [148] – [183] of the proportionality of the interference with the Appellants’ Article 8 rights following Shvidler v Foreign Secretary [2025] UKSC 30,  [2025] 3 WLR 346 may be of particular interest to those involved in such disputes.

Nicholas Ostrowski represented the Environment Agency at first instance and on appeal instructed by Ed Meggitt and Ella Harmer at Geldards LLP.