BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Greenock Port and Harbours [1920] UKHL 783_2 (22 July 1920) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1920/57SLR0783_2.html Cite as: 57 ScotLR 783_2, [1920] UKHL 783_2 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 783↓
(Before Major
Subject_Provisional Order — Locus — Right-of-Way — Harbour — Ratepayer Objecting to Proposed Closing of Harbour when Corporation Approve.
The Greenock Harbour Trustees promoted this Order to obtain power to close and fill up Cartsdyke Harbour, a small harbour under their jurisdiction, the title to which had not been but was now to be put in order, and which, it was maintained, was useless owing to its size and condition, but would afford excellent ground for extensions of shipbuilding yards or for industrial purposes. Power to acquire some small properties which lay in and were necessary to make the site complete and of easy handling was included. Originally the Order had been opposed by Greenock Corporation, but terms had been arranged. There remained, however, the opposition of certain individuals who purported to be acting on behalf of a “committee of representative ratepayers of the burgh of Greenock.” These individuals maintained that there was a right-of-way from Main Street, Greenock, down to the harbour where access to the Clyde was obtained, and that this right, together with the privilege of free access and use of the harbour as an open space, for fishing and for boating, had been enjoyed from time immemorial and should not now be taken away, there being no
Page: 784↓
necessity. The promoters questioned the locus of these objectors, On the ground that they did not purport to represent any particular class in the community with some peculiar interest at stake, but only generally the ratepayers, who were properly represented by the Corporation. The objectors maintained that anyone could defend a threatened right-of-way, and so the locus was good. The Commissioners granted the locus. The preamble was thereafter held proved, and clauses adjusted.
Counsel for the Trustees of the Port and Harbours of Greenock ( Promoting)— Sandeman, K.C.— Graham Robertson. Agents— Neill, Clark, & Murray, Solicitors, Greenock— Beveridge & Company, Westminster.
Counsel for Greenock Corporation ( Watching)— Macmillan, K.C.—Gentles. Agent— Andrew Nimmo, Town Clerk, Greenock.
Counsel for Richard Watkins and Others ( Objecting)— Scanlan. Agents— Thos. Scanlan & Company, Solicitors, Glasgow and Greenock.