Conclusions
Conclusion to the claim in the Tribunal under the 1991 Act
The claim under the 1991 Act fails. Mr Gould cannot show a tortious act by the Agency, whether in the way the 2001 works were carried out or in the diversion and reduction of the accustomed flow of water under the mill.
Judge Elizabeth Cooke Peter McCrea FRICS FCIArb
24 August 2023
Right of appeal
Any party has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on any point of law arising from this decision. The right of appeal may be exercised only with permission. An application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal must be sent or delivered to the Tribunal so that it is received within 1 month after the date on which this decision is sent to the parties (unless an application for costs is made within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties, in which case an application for permission to appeal must be made within 1 month of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision on costs is sent to the parties). An application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, identify the alleged error or errors of law in the decision, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses permission to appeal a further application may then be made to the Court of Appeal for permission.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The Environment Agency
- The factual background
- The legal background to the claim; the common law and statutory duties of the Agency and of riparian owners
- The details of Mr Gould’s case
- The 2001 concrete weir
- The drop from the weir to the channel
- The gabion mattress
- Preferential flow and the accustomed flow of water
- The evidence from maps
- Measurements and observations
- The erosion in the side channel
- Conclusions
![[2023] UKUT 201 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)