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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll