Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 19:41:49 GMT
First day over; Judge began urging settlement and gave us first 10 minutes to decide if there was potential, and then when Mr Stoner came back and told her that though it was not ruled out the time was too short, she gave a full hour of time out. No dice from CaRT, so we went ahead, First precis of case outlined from me with quite a few probing questions from the Judge, then Leigh cross-examined on his witness statement by Mr Stoner, followed by an exceptionally brief cross of Garner and Mr Deards by me, despite having prepared lengthy lists of questions - but I took my cue from the Judge that she wanted tight focus on issues directly determinative of the questions she had to decide, which meant that there was really no point in just making them look bad over their opinions. Tomorrow will be afternoon only from 2pm, when we watch a selection of video clips on the court's widescreen - if my laptop works with Shoosmiths' lead and both work with the courts equipment. We will then have the benefit of Mr Stoner's exposition for the rest of the day and probably into Wednesday, with time for a final word on Leigh's behalf. 3 days max. Leigh has held his end up very well in my opinion, under some relentless chasing over details. I really hope stoner has not seen the banana skin he's about to trod on. I've a good feeling on this one after doing a little research on the judge.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on May 22, 2017 21:50:43 GMT
First day over; Judge began urging settlement and gave us first 10 minutes to decide if there was potential, and then when Mr Stoner came back and told her that though it was not ruled out the time was too short, she gave a full hour of time out. No dice from CaRT, so we went ahead, First precis of case outlined from me with quite a few probing questions from the Judge, then Leigh cross-examined on his witness statement by Mr Stoner, followed by an exceptionally brief cross of Garner and Mr Deards by me, despite having prepared lengthy lists of questions - but I took my cue from the Judge that she wanted tight focus on issues directly determinative of the questions she had to decide, which meant that there was really no point in just making them look bad over their opinions. Tomorrow will be afternoon only from 2pm, when we watch a selection of video clips on the court's widescreen - if my laptop works with Shoosmiths' lead and both work with the courts equipment. We will then have the benefit of Mr Stoner's exposition for the rest of the day and probably into Wednesday, with time for a final word on Leigh's behalf. 3 days max. Leigh has held his end up very well in my opinion, under some relentless chasing over details. This is sounding rather positive Nigel, hope it will continue like this, and Leigh with your help will knock the law-transformers down the the ground where they belong.
Good luck for the next days,
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on May 24, 2017 10:46:12 GMT
Any feedback on yesterday? I did wonder if the judge would approve of a running commentary being posted on a public website, maybe she has asked Nigel to desist?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 24, 2017 21:23:47 GMT
All done and dusted after 3 days.
Now we just have to wait up to 3 months for the judgment.
Too far gone with the whisky to recount details just now, possess your souls in patience until I am up to the task.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on May 24, 2017 21:55:46 GMT
Well done ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 21:46:08 GMT
Stuart garner you twat enforcement officer Nottingham.it cost you 60 grand to get me to court and off your waterways.it didnt cost me a penny .so now what did you really really gain from it.?.Since being back on your waterways after 2 years away.I've noticed that the same boats are in the same places since I left the waterways. Why is it.or was I a test case..why is it one rule for one and not the other .I would love compensation from you .Why not answer me in public or have you got things to hide
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 25, 2017 22:25:27 GMT
Any feedback on yesterday? I did wonder if the judge would approve of a running commentary being posted on a public website, maybe she has asked Nigel to desist? The judge at no time made any mention of running updates or reference to forums – but I am being cautious nonetheless, and besides, I was keeping as tight a mental focus as possible. First day was very curious; the judge began by expressing her dismay that the High Court were being asked to deliberate over the issues behind a case wherein Mr Ravenscroft was asking for relatively little, and where the costs in the event of failure would be ruinous to him, and she was concerned that his case was being’ hijacked’ for the purposes of others. At whom that was directed I cannot say; I hope she was not thinking it was me &/or a group of disenchanted boaters – the phraseology was uncomfortable close to what CaRT were accusing me of in the CMC’s. Given that Chief Master Marsh had not agreed with that accusation so far as I can tell, and given that both Leigh and I had hopefully got across that he had always been willing to come to some accommodation providing only that CaRT published their admission respecting holding the boat as lien on the licence arrears, then it could be that she actually had CaRT in mind. Anyway, she left the court for 10 minutes to give the 2 sides a chance to settle. Leigh would have been willing, despite his passion to “see justice done”, to rest content with the figure he was claiming free and clear plus an agreed order as to the lien issue, but CaRT felt [somewhat understandably it has to be said] that having come this far, to leave without a binding finding would be too frustrating and the costs for nothing – Mr Stoner cited the example of the Brown Judicial Review in his explanations for failure to reach agreement between the parties, though he began by saying they would not rule out the possibility, but that 10 mins was too short for realistic negotiations. The Judge then said if more time was needed she would give an hour – so Leigh said much as he always had, to Mr Stoner, then off we went to have a quick smoke outside while the CaRT/Shoosmiths contingent huddled in a conference room. They unilaterally decided that agreement was not going to be feasible, so when the hour was over Mr Stoner regretfully announced that agreement was not going to be possible, and we made a rather late start with me outlining Leigh’s case. As usual, once I started deviating from my written notes I was faced with having to talk off the cuff, and I just hope I managed to cover the salient points in the hour or so before we broke off for lunch. I had to finish with saying I would need to refer her to the Skeleton for anything I had omitted, but in retrospect, I do wish I had taken more time, and had taken her through my exhibits and authorities to make my points, rather than simply referring to them. In fact, some of the going through those were done by Mr Stoner, which was tactical on his part [intending to ward off some of the stronger points], but helpful in my opinion, to Leigh’s case, thankfully. I am still not entirely sure of the “rules” regarding this. From some of the Judge’s earlier comments, and discussing with Mr Stoner, we decided that we could dispense with cross-examination provided that we could not be held to agree with anything disputed. The judge took a very pragmatic approach to that, and suggested we hand up a list of those things in the statement we disagreed with. Surprisingly, then, Mr Stoner said that witnesses should at least take the stand and be sworn in, and once there, he really went to town on Leigh, attempting to get enough to trip him. In my opinion, Leigh did very well. I doubt that Mr Stoner’s main angle - that the licence fees were only brought up by Mr Garner in reply to Leigh - did him any good. He made an issue of Leigh having said “What do I owe on licence fees” on the video, as an acknowledgment that he owed them and that Mr Garner was only answering that question, so that the question over whether they should be paid as well to get the boat back was not in evidence at that point in time – the demand was a later slip-up. I had a chat with Leigh, and we decided to stick with the ‘minimal intervention’ plan, so my cross-examination was minimal. I rather liked Mr Deards; it would be profitable to sit down and discuss with him the whole approach they take at some point, though it could have been a court persona of reasonableness that has taken me in; I would hope not. Maybe thinking over some of what I have said will sink in, having been forced to sit and hear the case for the disproportionality of how they use s.8. Mr Garner I spent very little time with and only asked 2 questions. The last was simply whether he had been shown Leigh’s response to the late Shoosmiths letter proposing narrowing the issues by dropping that which they had admitted [Yes], and then asking why he did not see fit to include that response which demonstrated that Leigh had not simply refused flatly the proposal, but had explained his position and made a counter proposal [it is buried in a separate bundle unrelated to the Garner Statement exhibits]. But the first of those was the one bit I decided I could not let go by, where he claimed in his sworn statement that Shoosmiths had written on a certain date affirming that CaRT was not holding the boat as a lien on debt. I took him to that email and asked him to show the court just exactly where that was said. As he had to admit, it simply was not there at all [it was an invention to play down the problem for them over this issue]. I am told by those at the back that his expression was a picture. The Judge had something else on the next morning, so we didn’t start until 2pm. We were not able to work out the Court’s Monitor and connection to my laptop, so we adjourned the video watching for the next day, while Mr Stoner put the case for CaRT. The rest of the afternoon was on the main navigable channel interpretation. Wednesday morning was the chance to play the videos, and after a chat with Leigh, decided to show only 3 clips, but I think they were telling ones, despite having too much extraneous nonsense involving the police. Significantly, the first showing Mr Garner trying to get close to Leigh while Leigh was walking back from him as he spoke, was a significantly different picture to the nose to nose intimidation as portrayed in the witness statement, and how anyone can mistake the lashing out of his hand at the camera without even looking at whoever it was, for a polite reasoned request with a hand held up just to block the view and not striking the camera, is beyond me. We also had the very clear introduction of the 4 year licence fee being mentioned, and Leigh’s father demanding to know what those amounted to so he could pay on the spot - the CaRT Defence was that no offer to pay was made. Mr Stoner then took the rest of the time to one o’clock presenting CaRT’s case re: proportionality and “distress”. After lunch I had about 2&1/2 hours to address certain points raised by Mr Stoner, and because I had introduced something not dealt with earlier, Mr Stoner was able to briefly respond to those. I am not going to say much more than this for now, while the Judge deliberates; others who were there could provide their own views freely should they wish.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 27, 2017 23:27:46 GMT
If Garner has lied to the court in his sworn statement will he be in contempt of court and be prosecuted ?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 28, 2017 0:32:51 GMT
Not in my experience. An enforcement officer lied in my own case, and all the judge said was something along the lines that it was obviously not true. He did nothing about it.
However, we will get transcripts of this [and the arguments put forward in CaRT's defence] and exhibit them before the Appeal Court in the 'satellite' litigation, which is effectively all about CaRT's conduct, and that will at least be extra embarrassment [not that they do embarrassment, but it will be extra, public exhibition of how the current driving forces at CaRT are prepared to have their employees forswear themselves in court.
Mr Garner's sworn evidence: "On 14 April 2015 Shoosmiths confirmed that they were taking instructions from their client and would revert to the Claimant as soon as they were in a position to do so. It was not the Trust's intention to hold the Boat as a lien over licence fee debts."
Leigh and before him Tracy Thomas, had both written specifically denying that CaRT were entitled to hold the boat as lien on the licence fees. On 12 April 2015 Leigh wrote: "It needs to be clearly understood that I am making this payment [4 years licence PLUS removal and storage costs] under protest, and that I do not accept, with respect to the disputed licence arrears, that your client has any right to hold the boat as a lien over that debt - which is something which I believe you as a solicitor have to be well aware of, and which you have failed to advise your client of as is your duty."
In reply, the Shoosmiths email of 14 April 2015 Garner refers to: "I can confirm the contents of your below and previous email have been noted. I am in the process of taking my client's instructions and I will return to you as soon as I am in a position to do so."
If anyone can read in that, anything about it not being CaRT's intention to hold the Boat as a lien over licence fee debts, then you will be doing better than Mr Garner did when I invited him to show it to the court.
In fact, the next follow-up email from Shoosmiths said: "I refer to your email of 12 April. I have now had the opportunity to obtain instructions from my client and confirm that on receipt of £8,176.00 [i.e. alleged licence arrears PLUS removal and storage costs] CRT will make arrangements to return your boat to you at the earliest opportunity. The comments of your email of 12 April are noted."
Despite the month or more trail of emails on the point, CaRT argued before the court that it was all inadvertent; even the last email could be interpreted as not demanding the alleged arrears as a condition of returning the baota. Going even further, they said that anyway, Leigh had never offered to pay the removal costs alone at any time, so there was no more delay in getting the boat to him than if the alleged arrears had not been paid, so he suffered no damage. That too was a lie evidenced in Garner’s own exhibits.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 28, 2017 16:24:08 GMT
If the final outcome of the case is in our favour the best weapon we will have is publicity, printing a thousand flyers and posting them on every CRT notice board over the system will really get on their tits.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 28, 2017 16:42:16 GMT
"Despite the month or more trail of emails on the point, CaRT argued before the court that it was all inadvertent; even the last email could be interpreted as not demanding the alleged arrears as a condition of returning the baot. Going even further, they said that anyway, Leigh had never offered to pay the removal costs alone at any time, so there was no more delay in getting the boat to him than if the alleged arrears had not been paid, so he suffered no damage. That too was a lie evidenced in Garner’s own exhibits."
Exactly the same tactics in my case, they told the ombudsman that their statements " it would not be appropriate to issue another licence to you " and " even a short term licence is out of the question" did not in fact mean no, and it was my fault for misinterpreting that, and not " engaging" with them !
You find that everything they say is specifically worded so that it has multiple definitions, and even definitions that you never thought possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 16:51:54 GMT
...... printing a thousand flyers and posting them on every CRT notice board over the system will really get on their tits. Just make sure you don't get caught
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 28, 2017 19:29:22 GMT
You find that everything they say is specifically worded so that it has multiple definitions, and even definitions that you never thought possible. Unfortunately for CaRT in this instance, they have already often admitted that it had been a "mistake" on their part, so the attempted re-interpretation of the Shoosmith missives in oral arguments to the Court will not cut much ice.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 30, 2017 20:16:10 GMT
It is interesting to go through the list provided by CaRT of the points they challenged within Leigh’s Statement. This was something suggested by the Judge as a means of short-cutting tedious cross-examination while not conceding anything unchallenged.
There are a number of seemingly pointless denials of certain things claimed by Leigh, of which they could have no knowledge one way or the other – but so what? They deny, for example – amongst a whole lot of other things – that the boat has been sold, and deny that a sale had been agreed in December 2014 [or at all]. It is fruitless, because I have copies of the emails back in 2014 wherein a firm agreement to buy had been made, subject to survey – which fell through following seizure. One of the most absurd points Mr Stoner sought to extract from Leigh in cross-examination was that he could have had a survey done while CaRT held the boat at the CBS yard – as Leigh rather forcefully answered: he had been forbidden to go anywhere near the yard, whether by himself or by proxy!
I also have copies of the subsequent Bill of Sale after more than a year languishing unwanted in a dusty field, for very much less than the original offer. But why bother denying something they do not know about, just because Leigh stated it? It seems obvious that they are trying to steer away any suggestion that Leigh suffered any loss; still, as I said to the Judge, we did not wish to burden the Court with superfluous material, and that only if the Court found in his favour would he bring out the proofs for quantifying his losses.
CaRT denied Garner lashed out pushing a phone into the cameraman’s face [embarrassing that, when the Court shortly saw the relevant footage]; denied that Leigh’s father made an offer to pay [other footage showed that later also]; denied that Mr Garner said the boat could be sold after 6 weeks, and denied that anyone thereafter insisted the licence fees had to be paid in order to get the boat back [firmly quashed after I read through the email strings to the judge].
The only element in all that which is incapable of proof is the ‘6 week then sell’ impression Leigh and Ms Thomas were given, prompting the Injunction application; but it will be powerful indication of this policy - for the Appeal Court hearing - that Garner’s superior is later quoted as saying exactly this.
Weirdly also, they deny that Godsmark J had suggested that the appeal over costs could [and should] have been joined to the main issues in the High Court. Leigh has the transcripts of the proceedings to give the lie to these denials, so again, this is just yet more silly posturing on their part, trying to dent his credibility or something.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 30, 2017 20:37:19 GMT
Did they not know that the seizure has been on YouTube for ages ?
|
|