Marinas in the dock.

[dgadee]

This decision is the British judiciary in a nutshell.

Quite frequently they will make judgements along the lines of "that is quite obviously the ordinary meaning of the word, indeed my Oxford English Dictionary says…" I'm sure I've read judges state that they must not allow themselves to get hung up on technicalities, pedantic diatribes on the exact meaning of a word, and should stick to commonsense definitions. I find a wikipedia page discussing this and numerous scholarly treaties [example].

In this case, on the other hand, the judges are adamant that a marina is not a dock "in the ordinary meaning of the word", despite the Oxford English Dictionary saying it is, and despite the previous ruling in The Environment Agency v. Barras that "a marina fits comfortably within the concept of a 'dock' in section 4 of the [Thames Conservancy Act 1932]".

A dock, it is revealed, is distinct from a landing place, and is, in fact, "an enclosed space with gates to allow the admission and retention of water". The judges spend paragraphs discussing the definitions of dock, landing place, jetty and so on, before finally concluding that the Merchant Shipping Act refers to “wet docks and basins, tidal docks and basins, locks, cuts, entrances, dry docks, graving docks, gridirons, slips, quays, wharves, piers, stages, landing places and jetties” and thus the presence of pontoons means that marina qualifies (for the liability limitations), anyway.

What a palaver! They could just have decided, in the first place, that a marina was a dock, and the outcome would have been no different. Except that would have been so much quicker and more concise, and saved no doubt hundreds of thousands in lawyer's fees.

The judges will probably have cut and pasted from the skeletal arguments provided by each side. Each side will try to cover every avenue given that they don't know how judges will approach the case. That's one reason why judgments are so long these days after the civil justice rules put emphasis on pre-court preparations.

 

[Laser310]

I am sure the judgment is correct interpretation of the law. However I think there is a strong argument that the law needs to be changed. The original law was for the mutual benefit of both shipping owners and the owners of “docks”. The application of this legislation to marinas is one sided it does not grant mutual protection it gives a licence to owners to fail to properly maintain there installation.

I would like to see the RYA get involved in lobbying for a change, perhaps we can prompt them into action by mentioning that marinas are sea horse habitat.

if life is made too difficult for marina owners.., as in; build your marina to survive an atomic bomb.., or face exposure to nearly unlimited liability that is possibly uninsurable.., they will just sell out to developers and the marinas will either unaffordable, or nonexistent.

It makes more sense for insurance against this kind of loss to be carried by the yacht owner.

if there is a question of negligence on the marina, the yacht owner's insurance company can try to recover from the marina's insurance company.

in this way, no one insurance provider gets hit with the full loss

 

[penfold]

Detailed plans of £100m Holyhead waterfront redevelopment with 250 berth marina revealed

Loving the artist's impression at the top that has boats moored at the pontoons with their sails up; attention to detail.

 

[mjcoon]

Loving the artist's impression at the top that has boats moored at the pontoons with their sails up; attention to detail.

They've probably been taking in washing...