Adverse Possession riparian rights

[Mudlark]

Do riparian rights apply to those in Adverse Possession?

[atticus]

The best I can say is that if you gain ownership through adverse possession of land that enjoys riparian rights, it seems possible that you gain the rights enjoyed by the land. But this is very much not an area in which I have any specialist knowledge or experience.

NB ChatGPT was no use!

[Mudlark]

Thank you Atticus, I do appreciate your input.
I know that if I, as a riparian occupier, exercising freehold rights,from the day I arrived, along with the riparian responsibilities which I could be fined for not carrying out. It seems to me that riparian rights do apply to me - see Thames conservancy act 1932 s60.
Thank you again.

[Mudlark]

Thames Conservancy act states that “nothing in this section or in any
bylaw made thereunder shall be construed to deprive any riparian owner
[dry] of any legal rights in the soil or bed of the Thames”.
CJ Mummery stated
“Where no wrong is committed by the mooring of the vessels alongside the
bank possessed or occupied by the claimant.
Although the common law does not recognise a positive riparian right to moor
alongside the bank permanently the absence of the right does not necessarily
connote the commission of a wrong and the presence of an unlawful mooring. If
what the claimant was doing was not a legal wrong, he was entitled to do it. If
he was entitled to do it, he was not doing it “without lawful authority” because
the law allows him to do what is not prohibited but common law or by statute.

This quote ,referring to the grand union canal, does not take into consideration
the Thames conservancy act 1932 s 262-264 which states that no owner or
occupier of any lands on the banks of the Thames (dry) will have their riparian
rights taken away, not even by future byelaw.
The Lpa quote the Thames Conservancy act saying “the right to navigation decribed
shall be deemed to include a right to anchor moor or remain stationary for a
reasonable time “ this is a partial quote from the act and covers the restrictions of a
boat that is navigating. There are no such restirctions placed on riparian owners of
the river bank.
The statute that was written to protect the Riparian owners mooring rights and
regulate navigation mooring restrictions is the Thames conservancy act 1932
LJ Wensleydale identifies the
difference between the Riparian mooring rights and navigation restrictions he also goes on to clarify that the riparian right to moor supercedes navigation
rights.
Held: Lord Justice Wensleydale said that: ‘it has been now settled that the rights to the enjoyment of a
natural stream of water on the surface, ex jure naturae, belongs to the proprietor of the adjoining lands, as
a natural incident to the right to the soil itself, and that he is entitled to the benefit of it, as he is to all the
other natural advantages belonging to the land of which he is the owner. He has the right to have it come to
him in its natural state, in flow, quantity, and quality, and to go from him without obstruction; . . the riparian
owner on a navigable river, in addition to the right connected with navigation to which he is entitled as one
of the public, retains his rights, as an ordinary riparian owner, underlying and controlled by, but not
extinguished by, the public right of navigation.’
T he Riparian owner of the river bank has the
riparian rights not the river bed owner as Lord
Justice Carirns established in 1976.
Lyon v Fishmongers’ Co: HL 1876
Access to the river Thames via the plaintiff’s wharf was obstructed and this was sufficient to
give rise to a successful action in private nuisance.
A riparian owner has a private law right to gain access to its frontage by boat.
Riparian rights do not depend on ownership of the soil of a stream; they attach to land in
either lateral or vertical contact with a stream. The grant of a fee simple to the bed of the river
may be subject to common law riparian rights
Cairns LC said:-
:’Unquestionably the owner of a wharf on the river bank has, like every other subject of the
realm, the right of navigating the river as one of the public. This, however, is not a right
coming to him qua owner or occupier of any lands on the bank, nor is it a right which, per se,
he enjoys in a manner different from any other member of the public. But when this right of
navigation is connected with an exclusive access to and from a particular wharf, it assumes a
very different character. It ceases to be a right held in common with the rest of the public, for
other members of the public have no access to or from the river at the particular place; and it
becomes a form of enjoyment of the land, and of the river in connection with the land, the
disturbance of which may be vindicated in damages by an action, or restrained by an
injunction.
The taking away of the river frontage of the wharf, or the raising of an impediment along the
frontage, interrupting the access between the wharf and the river, may be an injury to the
public right of navigation; but it is not the less an injury to the owner of the wharf, which, in
the absence of any Parliamentary authority, would be compensated by damages, or altogether
prevented.’
Judges:
Lord Selborne, Lord Cairns LC

Could someone please explain if I'm right or wrong ,when I say that this establishes that an Adverse Posession Occupier of riparian land has riparian rights in the bed and soil of the river irrespective of who owns it?