3Act of 1793, remain in force and unaffected by the provisions of theTransport Act 1968.(iii) Whether the Defendant is the relevant statutory navigation authority forthat element of the Grand Union Canal which now or formerlycomprised tidal waters of the River Brent.7.
In his Judgment of 12
February, Deputy Judge Mr Martin Mann QC (the judge) correctly identified that
“the legality of the section 8 notices rests primarily on the outcome of issue (i).”
(Tab 4, page 6, paragraph 15) Howeverhe later concluded that
“strictly speaking issue (i) does not need to bedetermined because a public right of navigation does not include an ancillaryright to moor other than temporarily in the course of navigation (issue (iv)).”
(Tab 4, page 12, paragraph 33)8.
As a result of this opinion the judge has only said in his Order that issue (i)
“isanswered (in so far as is necessary) in the following terms: the private right of navigation granted by section 43 of the 1793 Act was repealed by the 1968 Act.”
Issue (iii) was answered “Yes” in favour of the Defendant and I am notseeking to appeal against that finding.10.
In the course of handing down the judgment, while I was struggling to come toterms with the procedural niceties of an appeal against the determination of