I must admit that I'm still curious as to how it was possible to persuade a judge that flying an aeroplane with its wheels (rather than floats) dipped in the water, can be done without endangering an aircraft or its occupants.
A well publicised event, by a now deceased pilot, resulting in an upturned aircraft in a river some years ago, may have fuelled the CAA's reasoning in the matter, although I understand that the "official" circumstances surrounding the latter case were not "clear" and presumably in any event not admissible in evidence.