|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 11, 2017 15:18:49 GMT
Have at long last received the Transcript of Judgment of Chief Master Marsh from the March 2016 hearing, respecting the application by CaRT to have the whole Claim struck out. www.scribd.com/document/344861453/Marsh-Judgment-23-March-2016 The outcome was, of course, that the amended Particulars were accepted and the Claim was allowed to proceed, with CaRT’s further Application - to debar Leigh’s McKenzie Friend - being refused at the ensuing hearing in September the same year.
|
|
|
Post by canaldweller on Apr 11, 2017 15:55:59 GMT
Have at long last received the Transcript of Judgment of Chief Master Marsh from the March 2016 hearing, respecting the application by CaRT to have the whole Claim struck out. www.scribd.com/document/344861453/Marsh-Judgment-23-March-2016 The outcome was, of course, that the amended Particulars were accepted and the Claim was allowed to proceed, with CaRT’s further Application - to debar Leigh’s McKenzie Friend - being refused at the ensuing hearing in September the same year. Did you ever get a reply regarding terms of disclosure as per this post? thunderboat.boards.net/post/34288/thread
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 11, 2017 16:23:20 GMT
No. Mr Turner has since left and gone to upcountry courts elsewhere, and nobody else ever replied. It does not matter so much; we have enough to at least quote from CaRT publications, even in the unlikely event that Leigh was refused consent to produce them.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 11, 2017 21:17:12 GMT
Currently, Shoosmiths are declining to include the recently discovered documents posted here previously [and others] in the Bundle, because they were not listed in the Disclosure form of October last. If they persist [and having had all this time to read them along with accompanying comment it is very understandable that they would not wish these to be in evidence], Leigh may have to request permission of the Court to add them, in answer to the new grounds introduced by Mr Grimes and his replacement.
I have not heard back from him whether they have responded to his latest email regarding this.
|
|
|
Post by tomsk on Apr 11, 2017 21:24:17 GMT
Thanks for the update Nigel.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 11, 2017 21:51:30 GMT
Yet another long overdue completed transcript arrived today, of the January hearing before Lord Justice McFarlane as to permission to appeal the costs orders relating to Leigh's original discontinued Injunction claim. www.scribd.com/document/344907106/Ravenscroft-v-CaRT-2nd-Appeal-ProceedingsLeigh still has not received the transcript of the Judgment itself - a single firm now has exclusive rights to Appeal Court judgments, and delivery must wait on them.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 21, 2017 17:49:08 GMT
Leigh has finally received a copy of the approved judgment from his oral hearing before Lord Justice McFarlane respecting his costs appeal from the discontinued Injunction proceedings. It is a very good, fair appraisal, although the Judge has evidently misunderstood a couple of points [our fault no doubt]. The “ events in – Leigh’s – own family” had nothing to do with his decision to discontinue [paragraph 8], they were the reason he did not do so immediately when Ms Thomas had said he would. Also, neither of us suggested that CaRT had “ accepted that erroneous advice was given” by them; we only pointed out that they had not responded to Ms Thomas’s request for clarification as to that – but he is correct that we made the point that Shoosmiths at least, had accepted that the “impression” he had as to that was wrong [the judge quotes from the Shoosmiths letter], and of course he was right that we had said CaRT in their pleadings in the main case had acknowledged their “mistake” in using possession of the boat “ as a means of putting pressure on him to pay any alleged outstanding licence fees.” [para 12] Well, we had put it in more astringent terms, but to the same effect. It was exactly the right decision to adjourn the permission to appeal in the circumstances where he had not sight of the main case pleadings, which Leigh has now lodged with the Appeal Court as per the Order. CaRT have submitted a further Skeleton Argument for the pending hearing [in November], but I have not yet seen that. www.scribd.com/document/345890469/Ravenscroft-v-CaRT-Appeal-Permission-Judgment-25-Jan-2017
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 8, 2017 17:06:21 GMT
Surely now it'll be impossible to question the originator of the statement and Grimes will be able to legally shrug his shoulders? But, if C&RT's new(ish) Head of Legal, Deards, a qualified lawyer, now puts his name to an unchanged WS they won't be able to laugh off challenges regarding any damaging legal inaccuracies, such as the nonsense about there being no PRN on the Trent, in the same way as they would have able to when the WS was attributed to a layman. It seems as though it is only now that Mr Deards has had time to actually read the Grimes Witness Statement he adopted as his own. Thankfully - given the court time that would otherwise have been taken up in demonstrating how ridiculous the "no PRN" claim was - he has read the statement; noticed the offending paragraphs, and disclaimed them as wrong. He confirms in a supplementary witness statement sent only an hour ago, that CaRT do NOT suggest that the Trent's PRN was abolished by the 1968 Act. Well done Mr Grimes; we can do with a little more of this candour. Pity that more corrections were not made, but I suppose it is something that he has gainsaid what Grimes was " informed by Shoosmiths LLP" in at least one aspect. His predecessor had obviously dropped the ball on what Mr Deards describes in his job description as co-ordinating and overseeing communications between CaRT and Shoosmiths.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 9, 2017 5:31:15 GMT
But, if C&RT's new(ish) Head of Legal, Deards, a qualified lawyer, now puts his name to an unchanged WS they won't be able to laugh off challenges regarding any damaging legal inaccuracies, such as the nonsense about there being no PRN on the Trent, in the same way as they would have able to when the WS was attributed to a layman. It seems as though it is only now that Mr Deards has had time to actually read the Grimes Witness Statement he adopted as his own. Thankfully - given the court time that would otherwise have been taken up in demonstrating how ridiculous the "no PRN" claim was - he has read the statement; noticed the offending paragraphs, and disclaimed them as wrong. He confirms in a supplementary witness statement sent only an hour ago, that CaRT do NOT suggest that the Trent's PRN was abolished by the 1968 Act. Well done Mr Grimes; we can do with a little more of this candour. Pity that more corrections were not made, but I suppose it is something that he has gainsaid what Grimes was " informed by Shoosmiths LLP" in at least one aspect. His predecessor had obviously dropped the ball on what Mr Deards describes in his job description as co-ordinating and overseeing communications between CaRT and Shoosmiths. It is probably rather too much to hope for, but maybe with crunch time now only a week away they just might belatedly be beginning to get nervous about what's in store for them, . . . . massive in terms of potential embarrassment and future career prospects for certain members of the C&RT hierarchy, but in fact an 'across the board' win for Leigh would be of immense assistance to C&RT in actually achieving the goal they claim to be aiming for in the hypocritical WS's that accompany the Court papers in their S.8 live-aboard actions, ie. following a top management clear-out, the replacements achieving that "better management of our waterways" by way of the vast quantities of cash that get thrown in the direction of Comical Boat Services and Shoosmiths being spent instead on useful, and currently much neglected, maintenance and repairs. Of even greater importance in terms of an outcome beneficial to the future of our waterways would be the potential for a change in thinking at the top of C&RT if the present incumbents were replaced with people having a genuine interest in inland waterways. The collection of specimens who are in charge at present don't seem able to focus on anything other than empire building and crapping on selected targets from the boating community.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 9, 2017 7:58:49 GMT
. . . in fact an 'across the board' win for Leigh would be of immense assistance to C&RT in actually achieving the goal they claim to be aiming for . . . That is the positive outcome that Leigh will be seeking to emphasise when dealing with the whole 'disproportionality' question. There is a clear contradiction within CaRT statements as to their role vis a vis situation analysis - on one hand they bemoan the shortage of income, on the other they bemoan the increasing numbers of boats that provide that income. It almost comes across as suggesting a good rationale for getting rid of the extra boat numbers, yet if they managed licence evasion according to statute [as do the EA] the result would be a massive financial benefit: both in lessened expenditure on legal costs and contractors such as CBC, and increased licence income. Not to mention, of course, an increase in respect and public confidence.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 9, 2017 14:16:45 GMT
. . . in fact an 'across the board' win for Leigh would be of immense assistance to C&RT in actually achieving the goal they claim to be aiming for . . . That is the positive outcome that Leigh will be seeking to emphasise when dealing with the whole 'disproportionality' question. . . . . . . I think there are considerable plusses for C&RT in Leigh getting the Court's vote on the 'Main Navigable Channel' argument too, Nigel. They don't seem to have given any thought whatsoever to the repercussions likely to follow on from success for their ridiculous arguments that the MNC extends from bank to bank across the full width of a waterway. As a direct consequence of their apparently pathological desire to deprive people of their boats regardless of the circumstances, these S.8 junkies could, in the unlikely event of the Court endorsing their claims as to the extent of the MNC, find themselves having to address, and remedy, the fact that their waterways are constantly robbing thousands of riparian owners of their land via the process of bank erosion. C&RT's predecessors have largely eliminated the problem on the man-made canals thanks to the extensive piling work that they began back in the early 1960's, but there's a completely different situation along the hundreds of miles of banks of C&RT's scheduled river waterways. At present, a landowner whose land is disappearing bit by bit into the local C&RT controlled river every time that river floods and erodes more bank away can only blame God and his rain for the problem, but if C&RT get the ruling they want from the High Court next week, they then might just begin to regret it before too long.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 9, 2017 16:11:17 GMT
Nice point Tony; a problem - if one accepts Mr Grimes’ statement - is that God is on their side, as a predecessor creator of the Trent for commercial purposes [the alternative interpretation of his statement is that the Trent is part of the canal system, built as an artificial waterway, and so subject to the 1976 Byelaw - but he could not have meant that surely?].
Not that that would relieve then of maintenance duties for the whole of the river channels as well as that of the canals, if MNC is interpreted their way. Should we be hoping that Leigh loses that point in the interests of increased maintenance values? They will not be worried however; they have a 'get-out-of-gaol free' card already, in pleading poverty for a reason not to conform to existing accepted standards, let alone increased ones. Still, I can see an expanded avenue for s.106 actions by your riparian owners should the MNC stretch from bank to bank, even if boaters are loath to step forward.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 11, 2017 17:47:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 12, 2017 13:38:04 GMT
CaRT may well be getting alarmed at some of Mr Stoner’s argument. I am not going to discuss in detail pre-trial, but this paragraph in particular could be sending some shivers up the financial department’s spine :–
"It is suggested the natural reading of this phrase, in the context of the obligation, is to maintain the main channel from bank to bank, not simply the navigation fairway in the centre of the river or the canal and to maintain it for use by craft of the requisite size depending on the classification of the waterway;"
So – if this unprecedented interpretation is upheld, will we see an end to the present impossibility for too much of the canal network, of boats actually reaching the towpath? Will all future complaints by boats on online moorings be met with cheerful compliance to requests for dredging under their boats?
Maybe this case will prove a win-win for boaters in general [if not necessarily for Leigh] and a lose-lose case for CaRT.
We have been informed, by the way, that trial will not start until next Thursday; prior cases must be running over time.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 12, 2017 19:51:13 GMT
Helpful analysis of this would be useful; I can see where it is aimed, but would appreciate a view from other heads :-
“It is vitally important, when considering the Claimant’s assertion the Trust acted disproportionately, to recall that the Trust removed the vessel . . . because it was unlicensed; . . . The Trust did not remove the vessel because of licence arrears.”
|
|