Many harbour authorities are seeing more and more unserviceable vessels and sunk, stranded or abandoned vessels remaining in their harbours despite numerous attempts to contact the owners for their removal and/or repair.
The presence of these vessels causes a whole host of problems including creating a danger to navigation, polluting the harbour and, if there are liveaboards, harbour authorities could also see an increase in anti-social behaviour in their harbours.
This article looks at the rising challenge of unserviceable and abandoned vessels in harbours and explores whether injunctions could help harbour authorities prevent the problem recurring. We also provide practical considerations for harbour authorities.
Many statutory harbour authorities have vessel removal powers in their local legislation and under national legislation such as the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, if incorporated.
However, these powers only deal with a problem which has already eventuated and does not deal with the issue that once one vessel has been removed the same people could come back with a different vessel. Harbour authorities are then left out of pocket continuously removing these vessels, and there are inevitable PR/publicity and human rights considerations with removing unserviceable vessels if they are also considered someone’s home.
The ideal solution would be to stop people, whether known or unknown to the harbour authority, coming into the harbour with an unserviceable vessel in the first place by obtaining an injunction. This type of injunction against persons unknown has never been granted in the context of harbour authorities before.
However, the case of Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others (2023) considered this new type of injunction against persons unknown, referred to as a 'newcomer' injunction, in a land context and could prove helpful to harbours in the future.
In this case, a number of local authorities applied for injunctions designed to prevent unauthorised encampments by Gypsies and Travellers. The injunctions were addressed to ‘persons unknown’ because the Gypsies and Travellers who might wish to camp in a particular place cannot generally be identified in advance. By applying for these injunctions, the local authorities were seeking to comply with their statutory objectives and prevent breaches of wider public law, including planning law.
The issue for the Supreme Court was whether courts have power to grant these injunctions against persons unknown, who have not yet committed, or threatened to commit, any breach of law, trespass or other unlawful activity. The Supreme Court held that courts did have this power but that newcomer injunctions should only be exercised in specific circumstances. Namely, where there is a compelling need to protect civil rights or to enforce public law, and where no other adequate remedy is available.
Whilst the case concerned injunctions in the context of land, the Supreme Court suggested that it is possible to grant a newcomer injunction in other contexts such as cyber-crime, industrial disputes, intellectual property disputes and unlawful social media activities. This could also be a really helpful case if harbour authorities wished to seek an injunction, especially as, like local authorities, harbour authorities have public obligations they are required to protect.
Another recent case, The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Richmond-Upon-Thames v Alistair Trotman (2024), concerned the mooring of a houseboat vessel adjacent to the Thames riverbanks. Amongst other things, the London Borough of Richmond-Upon-Thames asserted that that Mr Trotman was obstructing other users of the river, his behaviour had been anti-social and he continued to cause a nuisance which required an injunction to restrain him. The High Court granted the following injunction:
“The defendant shall be prohibited, whether by himself or by inciting or encouraging any other person, from bringing, mooring or leaving on the River Thames any vessel whereby any part of it comes within 3 metres of a riverbank in the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames owned by the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames Council, unless it be so as to moor in compliance with the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames' Byelaws Relating to Mooring of 2015 (and any amendments thereto or replacements thereof). This injunction will remain in force indefinitely, unless varied by order of this court”.
This case recognises that injunctions can be used to deal with the issue of people inciting and encouraging others to bring and moor vessels in an area in breach of byelaws etc. This is helpful if a harbour authority is able to show a causal connection between those whose boats have been removed and people who are bringing more unserviceable vessels into the harbour.
The question of what to do with unserviceable vessels and sunk, stranded and abandoned vessels has been an issue for many years and one which seems to only be getting worse. Short of the government taking action, harbour authorities may feel that the only remedy left to them is applying for an injunction against persons unknown which threatens imprisonment for breaches.
Following the Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others case, the option of obtaining such an injunction now seems possible. However, there will be substantial evidence required to get to that point and show no other remedy is adequate.
Harbour authorities need to be very careful that they comply with the statutory provisions granting vessel removal powers and would be well-advised to keep evidence of all the ways they have been dealing with unserviceable vessels and sunk, stranded and abandoned vessels. Evidence might include notes of conversations with boat masters, owners and occupiers and details of breaches of directions and byelaws etc.
If a vessel is occupied then, in general, harbour authorities should obtain a court order before exercising their statutory powers, even if the statutory power does not require them to. However, we have successfully dealt with occupied vessels without having to resort to court, and dealing with the issue at the pre-action stage.
Ashfords marine and property litigation teams can advise on all stages of vessel removal and the various options available to harbour authorities to deal with unserviceable vessels and sunk, stranded and abandoned vessels. We would be happy to spend 15 minutes discussing them in general terms with any statutory harbour authority free of charge if you would like to give us a call.
For more information, please contact Warren Reid or Ione McGregor.
