A BOAT owner who claimed the British Waterways Board had a "vendetta' against him has escaped prosecution for allegedly not having a certificate for one of his vessels, following a High Court ruling.

Peter James was hauled before Evesham Magistrates Court in January 2002 for keeping a pleasure boat, Ya Basta, on the Severn at Pitchcroft, Barbourne, Worcester without a certificate.

Mr James, of Yabba Star, Ferry Bank, Henwick Road, Worcester, claimed the 19-foot boat was a tender for another craft he owned, Zephyr, and under the British Waterways Act 1971, this meant he didn't need a certificate.

Although magistrates concluded Ya Basta was a pleasure boat, they acquitted Mr James because his secondary defence was that he believed it to be a tender.

On Friday the British Waterways Board (BWB) appealed this decision to the High Court in what their legal team said was a test case of vital importance.

Describing the magistrates' finding as "alarming," lawyers for the BWB said it would be a "matter of concern" if a "mistake of fact" was allowed as a defence.

They also argued that there was no way that a 19-foot cabin cruiser could be described as a tender.

Lord Justice Kennedy, sitting with Mr Justice Hooper, agreed, and said the magistrates had been wrong to acquit Mr James for the reasons they did.

But the judge added that the BWB should, having established a point of principle, now drop their case against Mr James because it had rumbled on for so long. They agreed to do so.

Lord Justice Kennedy told the court Ya Basta, which has a 9.9 horsepower engine, was spotted on the River Severn on May 19, 2001, by a river warden.

Mr James had always maintained that despite its size, Ya Basta really was a tender, and argued that big support boats were needed on the Severn because of frequent flooding and the power of the waterway.

He added that small dinghies had only become fashionable as tenders in the last 10 to 15 years and, although he admitted he was the only person on the river with such a "big tender," said this didn't mean he'd done anything wrong.

Mr James, who said the BWB had failed to properly put forward the law at the Magistrates Court hearing, accused them of having a "vendetta' against him.

Alleging they were "anti-boat" Mr James unsuccessfully argued the BWB should have to pay the case's legal costs bills - rather than the public purse.

But Lord Justice Kennedy ordered the BWB's costs be met out of central funds.