Easement – Water. The claimants' action against the Environment Agency for interference with their quasi-easements over an artificial watercourse was dismissed. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) held that although the basic principle was that there was no natural right to water in an artificial watercourse, there were, however, various cases in which riparian rights had been held to exist in respect of an artificial channel, such as that at issue in the present proceedings. However, on the evidence, there had been no interference with the claimants quasi-easements and accordingly, their claim for compensation failed.