Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2017 20:24:27 GMT
Only suggestion I have;
If that is their open defense then look very closely at what might be their hidden defense.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on May 12, 2017 20:49:47 GMT
They wish to attach weight to the legality of the boat removal in order to lighten the rest of the sorry saga misunderstandings and administrative errors.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 12, 2017 21:27:43 GMT
The vital question is: why did they remove the boat? i.e to what purpose, other than the removal itself as an end in itself - even if removal was legitimate.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on May 12, 2017 21:32:23 GMT
The vital question is: why did they remove the boat? i.e to what purpose, other than the removal itself as an end in itself - even if removal was legitimate. That's not whey want the question to be! They want to say it was removed legitimately so other questions are neither here nor there. Maybe. I have no idea really, obviously, other than previous reported behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 12, 2017 22:02:30 GMT
The vital question is: why did they remove the boat? i.e to what purpose, other than the removal itself as an end in itself - even if removal was legitimate. That's not whey want the question to be! They want to say it was removed legitimately so other questions are neither here nor there. Maybe. I have no idea really, obviously, other than previous reported behaviour. You are exactly right; but I want to prise the details open regardless. They say the legitimate purpose of removing boats is the removal of boats. That seems a tautological dead end of a self-serving rationale.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 12, 2017 22:48:38 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.” There are echoes here of the guff that C&RT/Shoosmiths use to round off their S.8 WS's when they go after Declarations and Injunctions in the County Courts, . . . . to the effect that removal of the allegedly offending boat is an essential prerequisite to them being able to discharge their statutory duties to 'manage' and 'conserve' our inland waterways, . . . and I would doubt that there is much more to it than that. In fact, I would think that as something which is to be aired in Court, it could well be as helpful to Leigh's argument as it is damaging to C&RT's case. The references to 'unlicensed' and 'licence arrears' serve well in highlighting C&RT's consistent practice of blurring and obcsuring the distinction, and thus the vastly differing legal implications, between mandatory registration in the form of a PBC where boats are kept and used on only the scheduled PRN river waterways and therefore not subject to mandatory licensing, and mandatory licensing in the form of a PBL for the man-made and, since 1968, non-PRN canals . The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this is that either Stoner's grasp of the relevant legislation is as tenuous as C&RT's appears to be, or both Stoner and C&RT are knowingly misleading the Court.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on May 13, 2017 6:16:27 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.” There are echoes here of the guff that C&RT/Shoosmiths tack onto the end of their S.8 WS's when they go after Declarations and Injunctions in the County Courts, . . . . to the effect that removal of the allegedly offending boat is an essential prerequisite to them being able to discharge their statutory duties to 'manage' and 'conserve' our inland waterways, . . . and I would doubt that there is much more to it than that. In fact, I would think that as something to be trotted out in Court, it could well be as helpful to Leigh's argument as it is damaging to C&RT's case. The two references to 'licensing' and 'licences' serve only to highlight C&RT's consistent practice of blurring the important, even vital, distinction between registration, in the form of a PBC, and licensing in the form of a PBL. The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this is that either Stoner's grasp of the relevant legislation is as tenuous as C&RT's appears to be, or both Stoner and C&RT are knowingly attempting to mislead the Court. Rereading the 71 act, section 5 suggests that the boat should have a PBC or a PBL covering 'all waterways'. To that extent, it is in error of omission as the boat would have been kept lawfully in the 'main navigable channel' if it had a PBC. That said, section 8 of the 83 Act does not allow the removal of boats because they don't have licence or certificate but rather those left or moored without lawful authority'. Perhaps this is recognition that, where a public right of navigation exists, so does lawful authority. I feel that C&RT are trying to wriggle off the hook of using seizure as a means of recovering debt.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 13, 2017 10:08:07 GMT
There are echoes here of the guff that C&RT/Shoosmiths tack onto the end of their S.8 WS's when they go after Declarations and Injunctions in the County Courts, . . . . to the effect that removal of the allegedly offending boat is an essential prerequisite to them being able to discharge their statutory duties to 'manage' and 'conserve' our inland waterways, . . . and I would doubt that there is much more to it than that. In fact, I would think that as something to be trotted out in Court, it could well be as helpful to Leigh's argument as it is damaging to C&RT's case. The two references to 'licensing' and 'licences' serve only to highlight C&RT's consistent practice of blurring the important, even vital, distinction between registration, in the form of a PBC, and licensing in the form of a PBL. The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this is that either Stoner's grasp of the relevant legislation is as tenuous as C&RT's appears to be, or both Stoner and C&RT are knowingly attempting to mislead the Court. Rereading the 71 act, section 5 suggests that the boat should have a PBC or a PBL covering 'all waterways'. To that extent, it is in error of omission as the boat would have been kept lawfully in the 'main navigable channel' if it had a PBC. Section 5(1) of the BW Act 1971 is somewhat loosely worded, and it is my belief that, with the intention of perpetuating the generally accepted but utterly false perception that PBC's and PBL's are simply two differing forms of licence and that the terminology is interchangeable, C&RT are content to follow their predecessor's lead by making good use of the potential for misunderstanding lurking in the last 27 words in that subsection - "or unless there is then in force in relation to it a licence issued by the Board allowing the use of all inland waterways without further payment". The deception they seek to perpetuate is that the PBC is a restricted form of licence which limits the named boat to river waterways only.
They also, at the very least somewhat disingenuously, treat the word "allowing" as though implying that the PBL is, in common with the PBC, the "lawful authority" for a boat to be on a scheduled PRN river navigation, when in truth it is the common law right of navigation alone that bestows the "lawful authority" which they claim via their S.8 Notices to be absent, whilst neglecting to mention that 'further payment' for the use of a river navigation by a boat already licensed for use on the non-PRN canals is not required simply because the boat identity details and information already held by C&RT in respect of the PBL are identical to those required for registering a boat for river waterway use only by way of a PBC.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 13, 2017 10:22:04 GMT
To finesse that a little, prior to 1971 boats could use the river navigations freely, yet still had to pay for use of the locks, registered or unregistered. The PBL "allowed" licensed boats to escape the payment of those tolls, should they use the locks. Those tolls would have constituted the "further payment" to which they would otherwise have been liable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 18:28:46 GMT
Good luck tomorrow nigel.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 17, 2017 18:49:26 GMT
Good luck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 19:11:16 GMT
Good luck
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 17, 2017 20:30:32 GMT
Good luck tomorrow nigel. Thanks guys [including the others]. In fact we received notification from Shoosmiths this afternoon that it has been put forward to Monday morning, with the judge taking Friday to read through the pleadings. Can't say I'm sorry in terms of preparation time, but had to sacrifice my pre-booked train fare! Thankfully Leigh was putting off booking an hotel until he was absolutely sure of the listing. This last minute business is wearing, but par for the course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 20:36:42 GMT
Notification from Shoosmiths?
I presume you have checked the facts...
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 17, 2017 21:21:55 GMT
Notification from Shoosmiths? I presume you have checked the facts... I had already checked this afternoon's listings update, and found that Ravenscroft v CaRT was nowhere to be found. It was when I opened emails to get a phone number to chase up and confirm that, that theirs came in with the latest following the barrister's clerk phoning into the court. Your cynicism is not misplaced, but they honestly could not afford to have it on record that they positively lied to us about this; it is not the same thing as "forgetting" to pass on the message. They are simply acting with professionalism, Leigh having asked for such updates.
|
|