LONDON & NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. CHESTER & SON.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 195

KING'S BENCH DIVISION.

Before Mr. Justice Branson.

Railways - Powers - Access to fish quays occupying space on plaintiffs' premises (Hull Docks) - Agreement between plaintiff railway company (as dock-owners) and defendant fish merchants - Transport of fish from docks - Whether plaintiffs entitled to impose conditions governing the use of motor vehicles for transport and to an injunction restraining the defendants from using road transport in certain circumstances - Prevention of congestion in docks - Right to exclude any vehicle intended for transport of fish by road beyond a radius of 12 miles from the docks - Consideration of plaintiffs' powers regarding the landing and sale of fish and of defendants' right of access at common law and by statute - Hull Docks Acts - Held, that the plaintiffs were not bound to allow fish sales to take place on the particular quays and that the defendants had no common law or statutory right of access to those quays unless and until they became entitled to goods upon them; that the defendants were not entitled to access to the quays before they were so entitled to goods except by the licence of the plaintiffs; that that licence could be given subject to any conditions which the plaintiffs chose to impose; that in fact the defendants were given a licence entitling them to attend sales and that, having purchased fish, a statutory right to remove that fish accrued to them; that that right implied the right to use such vehicles as were reasonably necessary for the purpose of such removal; that there was no statutory right in the plaintiffs to direct how the fish should be removed; that there being no statutory obligation on the plaintiffs to permit the defendants to occupy space on the quay, if the defendants desired those facilities they must agree the terms with the plaintiffs; but that, under the licence granted by the plaintiffs, the defendants were entitled to bring vehicles upon the plaintiffs' premises for the removal of defendants' fish, and there was no right in plaintiffs to superimpose any further condition while that licence was in operation.