|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 19, 2017 15:10:06 GMT
He will be laughing all the way to his Cayman Islands bank account, don't you worry. Does he still have friends at Hell Trains?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 6, 2017 17:56:01 GMT
Just reading through the recent judgment in Jones v CaRT, there is an alarming example of how the views of CaRT as put across in pleadings are accepted without question. Lord Justice McCombe acknowledges in his introductory paragraph on “Background Facts” that what he goes on to set out relies on the skeleton arguments “from which much of the following is gratefully derived.” Therein lies so many of the problems faced by the public in the legal arena.
The offending paragraph concludes: “There are also powers conferred upon the Respondent to remove vessels in certain circumstances under s.13 of the 1971 Act and s.8 of the 1983 Act, where a boat operator has failed to comply with the terms of his licence.” As a whole, that is egregiously false [though I am not faulting the judge for simply recounting CaRT’s supposedly innocent outline of their powers]; it applies only to s.13 re: houseboats, not to s.8 [unless one counted the genuine s.17 1995 conditions].
It is highly doubtful that the Appellant’s legal representation would have noticed this. Thankfully, it forms no part of the decision, but it does emphasise how sharp and alert one needs to be to fend off these wild assertions slipped in by CaRT in seemingly innocuous contexts.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 6, 2017 19:24:14 GMT
Just reading through the recent judgment in Jones v CaRT, there is an alarming example of how the views of CaRT as put across in pleadings are accepted without question. Lord Justice McCombe acknowledges in his introductory paragraph on “Background Facts” that what he goes on to set out relies on the skeleton arguments “ from which much of the following is gratefully derived.” Therein lies so many of the problems faced by the public in the legal arena. The offending paragraph concludes: “There are also powers conferred upon the Respondent to remove vessels in certain circumstances under s.13 of the 1971 Act and s.8 of the 1983 Act, where a boat operator has failed to comply with the terms of his licence.” As a whole, that is egregiously false [though I am not faulting the judge for simply recounting CaRT’s supposedly innocent outline of their powers]; it applies only to s.13 re: houseboats, not to s.8 [unless one counted the genuine s.17 1995 conditions]. It is highly doubtful that the Appellant’s legal representation would have noticed this. Thankfully, it forms no part of the decision, but it does emphasise how sharp and alert one needs to be to fend off these wild assertions slipped in by CaRT in seemingly innocuous contexts. When dealing with appeals and small claims court. I have always been told to counter every point the other party makes or you will be deemed to have accepted what they have written.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 6, 2017 21:14:18 GMT
When dealing with appeals and small claims court. I have always been told to counter every point the other party makes or you will be deemed to have accepted what they have written. Quite right. That is why I said this arena can prove a stumbling block for the amateur. Same goes for cross-examination of witnesses - as I learnt to my cost in my earliest case.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 6, 2017 21:39:01 GMT
Quite right. That is why I said this arena can prove a stumbling block for the amateur. Same goes for cross-examination of witnesses - as I learnt to my cost in my earliest case.[/quote] Ahh but what your dealing with is far more complex than I could ever deal with especially when there is normally so much at stake. It's easy to see how people slip up against experienced solicitors and lawyer's.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 7, 2017 14:18:16 GMT
It would be helpful for anyone facing up to CaRT if there was published online a guide to waterways law, which sets out both sides of the disputed interpretations of it, previous case law, and judgements, including CaRT's tricks they attempt in court.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 7, 2017 14:52:33 GMT
It would be helpful for anyone facing up to CaRT if there was published online a guide to waterways law, which sets out both sides of the disputed interpretations of it, previous case law, and judgements, including CaRT's tricks they attempt in court. I agree that it would be helpful - but have you any idea of what a massive undertaking that would be? Meanwhile, though nothing like as useful as what you envisage, there is the material that I post up on scribd including not only the case law, but also the arguments from both sides. I will continue to update and expand that, but make no promises about the sort of guide that is, as you say, really needed to make easy access to and sense of it.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 7, 2017 15:29:24 GMT
It would be helpful for anyone facing up to CaRT if there was published online a guide to waterways law, which sets out both sides of the disputed interpretations of it, previous case law, and judgements, including CaRT's tricks they attempt in court. There's nothing stopping anyone from writing a history of such cases, and making it all into some kind of book or guide.
|
|