Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2018 17:08:43 GMT
I wonder sometimes if all of the stuff posted on here is read by people other than contributors to the forum. Obviously I know MI5 and 6 keep an eye on it mainly to make sure I am complying with the OSA 1989 but there are other things and if anyone is caught dissing them they will come down on the offender like a tonne of bricks. I imagine the same applies for CRT. You mess with them at your peril. I believe the SBS keep a waiting watch.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 12, 2018 17:19:19 GMT
Your points above 1. No idea what the official term is for an appeal that is withdrawn by the claimant, couldn’t find anything on google, but probably (officially) it is not abandoned by mutual consent, but is with drawn by the claimant. Wether that results in it being ‘dismissed’ from the court I don’t know, an ask on a legal forum may get you an answer before you write your letter. 4 above - You are correct that in the previous case crt was the defendant and the judgement was in the defendants favour, but in this case crt are the claimant and so as claimant in this case they are advising the court that in a previous case they (the claimant in this case) won. So I think the CRT letter is worded correctly. There will always need to be a little care with the wording of any letter to the Court, which Tony is obviously aware of; on a pointy of accuracy as I said a couple of days ago (page 64), it is strictly true to say the Appeal was “dismissed”, for all that that might convey the wrong impression outside of the legal profession. However one would hope that a copy of the relevant Appeal Court Order was forwarded to Nottingham, in order to prevent any misapprehension as to its effect? I show the Order here, redacted only to prevent personal & home address details being publicised – The essential nature of the Order is that: “ Upon the parties agreeing terms of settlement . . . The appeal is dismissed . . .” So it IS ‘abandoned by mutual consent', which resulted in ‘dismissal’ upon both parties agreeing to ask for that – in this case, with no Order as to costs. Dismissal in such circumstances contains no suggestion that either party concedes their argued position; Courts are always happy for litigants to resolve matters between themselves. The date of that Order, as can be seen, was 12 September, CaRT receiving their copy on the 14th, 2 days later. Under the terms of the ‘Potts’ Order of 2016, therefore – as Tony has said - CaRT were to write to the Court requesting a directions hearing by 12 October latest (more strictly by the 10th, so Tony is correct in saying they were 13 days out of time). In my experience Courts don’t bother overmuch with such tardiness when it arises from professional parties, but it is certainly worth raising the matter as a potential basis for the pursuit of the Claim to be considered lost. I do not understand CaRT’s stance that a directions hearing is negated (IF such was their suggestion) by the Potts Order – that Order mandates a request for such a hearing, upon disposition of the Ravenscroft case regardless of the outcome, dependant only upon the parties’ inability to agree directions – no such agreement even being attempted so far as I know. It might also be considered somewhat pedantic to note the inaccuracy respecting the nature & content of the witness statement (as it is pedantic for CaRT to harp on about the statement being unsigned), considering that the 2016 Order acknowledges that the MNC question is raised in the Defence – even though that issue was couched in terms of whether a licence was required, to simply remain outside the MNC (when of course, it is not required anywhere within the public navigable river, and this was not, strictly speaking, the Ravenscroft issue). There are, nonetheless, some 8 other issues raised in the Defence, which are all of them highly topical, and none of which were addressed in the Ravenscroft case – with the possible exception of the application of the HRA, which Asplin J brushed aside as inapplicable. I believe that Tony is also correct in that the Part 8 procedure has been successfully challenged, hence the ongoing requirement for directions.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 12, 2018 17:58:53 GMT
1. No idea what the official term is for an appeal that is withdrawn by the claimant, couldn’t find anything on google, but probably (officially) it is not abandoned by mutual consent, but is with drawn by the claimant. Wether that results in it being ‘dismissed’ from the court I don’t know . . . Just to add in further clarification of that issue – where both parties agree to have the case withdrawn, contingent upon agreed conditions that are recorded within the Order, the result is what is known as a ‘Consent Order’, or sometimes as a ‘Tomlin Order’. It is usually (as in the Ravenscroft case) with no order for costs, each party agreeing to bear their own. If the claimant in a case unilaterally withdraws their Claim, the resultant Court Order could be as simple as ordering that “ The hearing – of whatever date – be vacated.” In those circumstances it is then open to the defendant to pursue their costs, because they have had their time and money wasted without any chance to defend their case and recover those costs.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Nov 12, 2018 18:36:23 GMT
1. No idea what the official term is for an appeal that is withdrawn by the claimant, couldn’t find anything on google, but probably (officially) it is not abandoned by mutual consent, but is with drawn by the claimant. Wether that results in it being ‘dismissed’ from the court I don’t know . . . Just to add in further clarification of that issue – where both parties agree to have the case withdrawn, contingent upon agreed conditions that are recorded within the Order, the result is what is known as a ‘Consent Order’, or sometimes as a ‘Tomlin Order’. It is usually (as in the Ravenscroft case) with no order for costs, each party agreeing to bear their own. If the claimant in a case unilaterally withdraws their Claim, the resultant Court Order could be as simple as ordering that “ The hearing – of whatever date – be vacated.” In those circumstances it is then open to the defendant to pursue their costs, because they have had their time and money wasted without any chance to defend their case and recover those costs. Thanks for that, interesting.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 12, 2018 18:54:27 GMT
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 38.7 states/demands that Claimants discontinuing a claim post having sight of the Defendant's Defence seek permission from the Court before commencing another claim arising out of facts which are the same or substantially the same as those relating to the discontinued claim.
The Trust's current Claim No. C10NG401 against me is in every respect identical to a previous claim (No. A00NG769) discontinued on 13 March 2015 on the grounds that it had become - quote 'worthless and academic', and yet there is nothing in the Court's records, or mine, of any Application on the part of the Trust for the permission required under CPR 38.7 prior to issuing Claim No. C10NG401.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Nov 12, 2018 19:16:33 GMT
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 38.7 states/demands that Claimants discontinuing a claim post having sight of the Defendant's Defence seek permission from the Court before commencing another claim arising out of facts which are the same or substantially the same as those relating to the discontinued claim. The Trust's current Claim No. C10NG401 against me is in every respect identical to a previous claim (No. A00NG769) discontinued on 13 March 2015 on the grounds that it had become - quote 'worthless and academic', and yet there is nothing in the Court's records, or mine, of any Application on the part of the Trust for the permission required under CPR 38.7 prior to issuing Claim No. C10NG401. Maybe time for a letter to CRT requesting copies of the application to the court and of the courts permission to proceed with the case, and why CRT considered the new claim to be substantially different to the discontinued claim.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 12, 2018 19:18:17 GMT
The Trust's current Claim No. C10NG401 against me is in every respect identical to a previous claim (No. A00NG769) discontinued on 13 March 2015 on the grounds that it had become - quote 'worthless and academic' . . . I rather thought that the word "otiose" grandiloquently made an entrance into the correspondence somewhere along the line? Worth noting, perhaps, that upon CaRT's unilateral discontinuance of that action, despite what I posted earlier, they successfully resisted having to pay your costs, because it was all your fault that you got the PBC?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2018 19:34:33 GMT
Another new word for me grandiloquent /ɡranˈdɪləkwənt/ adjective pompous or extravagant in language, style, or manner, especially in a way that is intended to impress. Thanks for that nigel its a good 'un
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 12, 2018 20:05:46 GMT
I wonder sometimes if all of the stuff posted on here is read by people other than contributors to the forum. Perfect way to learn or teach English, eh? Who knows, perhaps Vladimir Putin logs in every evening at 10pm for an hour's read and a chuckle? (it would also be a good aid for those studying to become lawyers!)
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 12, 2018 20:25:37 GMT
I wonder sometimes if all of the stuff posted on here is read by people other than contributors to the forum. Obviously I know MI5 and 6 keep an eye on it mainly to make sure I am complying with the OSA 1989 but there are other things and if anyone is caught dissing them they will come down on the offender like a tonne of bricks. I imagine the same applies for CRT. You mess with them at your peril. It has been posted before, but – for so long as, for example, canalworld’s ‘debbifiggi’ remains in CaRT’s employ, this and other sites will be continually monitored for anything of interest to their legal/administrative departments, as per :- This is a very good thing. Posting in online forums is one sure way of drawing their attention, where direct correspondence could perchance be (inadvertently of course) dropped through administrative cracks.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 12, 2018 22:50:34 GMT
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 38.7 states/demands that Claimants discontinuing a claim post having sight of the Defendant's Defence seek permission from the Court before commencing another claim arising out of facts which are the same or substantially the same as those relating to the discontinued claim. The Trust's current Claim No. C10NG401 against me is in every respect identical to a previous claim (No. A00NG769) discontinued on 13 March 2015 on the grounds that it had become - quote 'worthless and academic', and yet there is nothing in the Court's records, or mine, of any Application on the part of the Trust for the permission required under CPR 38.7 prior to issuing Claim No. C10NG401. Maybe time for a letter to CRT requesting copies of the application to the court and of the courts permission to proceed with the case, and why CRT considered the new claim to be substantially different to the discontinued claim. I don't believe C&RT do, or did, consider the current claim (No. C10NG401) to be substantially different from the discontinued Claim (No. A00NG769). The arrogant sods are either assuming, and/or hoping, that they can get away with ignoring 38.7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, or they and their lawyers - Shoosmiths, at the time Claim No. C10NG401 was issued - are in ignorance of the rules governing litigation procedures. They are either being contemptuous of the Court and the CPR's in going ahead absent the Court's permission, or they are blissfully unaware of the constraints and obligations imposed upon them by the CPR's, . . there is no third alternative available to them to explain away this apparent oversight !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 13, 2018 0:06:04 GMT
The Trust's current Claim No. C10NG401 against me is in every respect identical to a previous claim (No. A00NG769) discontinued on 13 March 2015 on the grounds that it had become - quote 'worthless and academic' . . . I rather thought that the word "otiose" grandiloquently made an entrance into the correspondence somewhere along the line? Worth noting, perhaps, that upon CaRT's unilateral discontinuance of that action, despite what I posted earlier, they successfully resisted having to pay your costs, because it was all your fault that you got the PBC? Can't remember them using that word in any of the Court papers, Nigel, but I'd have to dig out and go through the paperwork to be absolutely sure. They did indeed wriggle out of having costs awarded against them following discontinuance of Claim No. A00NG769, but only after having attempted, and failed, to coerce me into agreeing to discontinue via a Consent Order. My reasons for refusing to agree to a Consent Order were twofold, the costs provisions in CPR 38.7 for one, but more importantly, the obligations placed upon them prior to issuing a substantially similar claim in the future, . . the precise situation now attaining. Their Application to Discontinue was on the grounds that in renewing my (dishonestly branded as a 'Rivers only Licence') PBC on it's normal expiry/renewal date in August 2014 after C&RT notified me that they had revoked it approximately mid-term in January 2014, I had rendered their Part 8 claim 'worthless and academic'. The Part 8 claim was the standard formula asking the Court for a Declaration that they were entitled to remove my boat from their waters (including the PRN river waterways), and an Injunction preventing me from returning it to their waters, on the usual grounds that without a 'Licence' it was there 'without lawful authority'. At the time of the 2014 claim ( No. A00NG769) there is no question that I was keeping and using my boat in the MNC of the river Trent navigation, and therefore obliged to hold, not a Licence, but a current registration certificate under the terms of the 1971 BW Act. However, C&RT's nasty little contrivance of unlawfully revoking that certificate (PBC) solely to create grounds for taking me to Court to obtain a Declaration and Injunction, has now to some extent come back to bite them in the form of CPR 38.7.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 13, 2018 9:35:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 13, 2018 17:46:50 GMT
With regard to C&RT succeeding in avoiding a costs award post their unilateral discontinuance of Claim No. A00NG769, I have to say that if I'd known then what I know now about how the Courts operate and the way hearings are conducted, then I'm fairly certain that things would have gone somewhat differently.
I attended the hearing of C&RT's Application to Discontinue naively assuming that the Judge would have read all the papers, ie. my Defence in its entirety, and be fully 'au fait' with the circumstances under which the claim was issued, including the fact that my not having what the Claimants referred to as a 'Licence' had been brought about through them revoking it and NOT as a consequence of me failing to buy one.
I'm convinced that the Judge had merely skipped quickly through the papers without reading my Defence and come to the conclusion that I was simply a licence dodger who had taken out a licence only after the C&RT had commenced legal proceedings, . . which of course is precisely the intention behind C&RT's all too frequent abuse of due process in taking action for 'no Licence' against boat owners they themselves have unlawfully deprived of their boat Licences (PBL's), or registration certificates (PBC's), in blatant contravention of Section 17 of the 1995 BW Act.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Nov 13, 2018 18:53:16 GMT
With regard to C&RT succeeding in avoiding a costs award post their unilateral discontinuance of Claim No. A00NG769, I have to say that if I'd known then what I know now about how the Courts operate and the way hearings are conducted, then I'm fairly certain that things would have gone somewhat differently. I attended the hearing of C&RT's Application to Discontinue naively assuming that the Judge would have read all the papers, ie. my Defence in its entirety, and be fully 'au fait' with the circumstances under which the claim was issued, including the fact that my not having what the Claimants referred to as a 'Licence' had been brought about through them revoking it and NOT as a consequence of me failing to buy one. I'm convinced that the Judge had merely skipped quickly through the papers without reading my Defence and come to the conclusion that I was simply a licence dodger who had taken out a licence only after the C&RT had commenced legal proceedings, . . which of course is precisely the intention behind C&RT's all too frequent abuse of due process in taking action for 'no Licence' against boat owners they themselves have unlawfully deprived of their boat Licences (PBL's), or registration certificates (PBC's), in blatant contravention of Section 17 of the 1995 BW Act. I would think that it's (almost ?) impossible to fight your case in conditions like that, how can a judge objectively judge a case if he/she doesn't really has bothered to take the time necessary to get all the information needed ? This sort of comedy hasn't got much, if anything, to do with justice like that. Peter.
|
|