|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 30, 2016 23:38:07 GMT
I read Paul's post as (1) a dig at Dan and (2) a way of avoiding having your thread locked/hidden/deleted due to the very odd 'criticise but don't campaign against' new rules. Yes, it is a peculiar 'rule', of very indeterminate parameters. It is not 'my' thread of course, but I take your point. Maybe he is being cleverer than I thought at first.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Oct 30, 2016 23:38:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Oct 30, 2016 23:38:42 GMT
I do think that after reading this thread that for CRT the shit is going to hit the fan in court. I just hope that they dont go down the changes to the act route to gain the powers that they think they need to manage the waterways properly
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Oct 30, 2016 23:38:48 GMT
Okay, thanks for that summation. So, as you don't 'know' the relevance of the DC's instructions does that make it more difficult to ask the Master that they provide it?
Actually reading this again... ... isn't that all the justification you require to demand the information?
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 30, 2016 23:44:39 GMT
The Master can be asked to order the disclosure of details of why DC was there and the exact capacity.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 30, 2016 23:46:08 GMT
It would be a disclosure application, long time since I have done one. Last one I did the other side collapsed as soon as the order was granted. CPR 31 Standard disclosure – what documents are to be disclosed 31.6 Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only– (a) the documents on which he relies; and (b) the documents which – (i) adversely affect his own case; (ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or (iii) support another party’s case; and (c) the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction. Back to top This is what we thought we could rely on, but Shoosmiths are relying on a supposed refinement in the Order that allegedly holds them to 31.6(a) only. In their own words: " Dear Mr Ravenscroft
With regard to your email below, paragraph 4 of the Order of Chief Master Marsh dated 5 September 2016 (“the Order”) states “each party shall give disclosure by list limited to any document on which that party intends to rely in the action” (emphasis added). As my client does not intend to rely on the instructions given to the ‘Commercial Boat Services people’ (as you refer to them) and those ‘directing the role of the “Debt Collector” then they have not been listed. The Judge asked the parties whether they agreed to standard disclosure being restricted in this way during the hearing, and asked Mr Moore if you understood and agreed to this, to which he replied that you did. " [my emphasis] I have no recollection of this at all, and certainly did not understand there to be any such restriction on disclosure. It has become imperative that we obtain the transcript of the proceedings I fear.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Oct 30, 2016 23:48:35 GMT
Ouch. If it transpires that Leigh did agree to that I guess you're unable to say "Sorry our mistake"?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 30, 2016 23:51:27 GMT
Thanks for that chewy, will read more carefully at leisure, but an immediate difficulty I see from that, is 1) identifying the person by name, and 2) paying the wages and travel expenses involved! Currently, I see Leigh having to write in for guidance from the Master respecting this, but first I need to get the transcript.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 30, 2016 23:56:09 GMT
It would be a disclosure application, long time since I have done one. Last one I did the other side collapsed as soon as the order was granted. CPR 31 Standard disclosure – what documents are to be disclosed 31.6 Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only– (a) the documents on which he relies; and (b) the documents which – (i) adversely affect his own case; (ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or (iii) support another party’s case; and (c) the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction. Back to top This is what we thought we could rely on, but Shoosmiths are relying on a supposed refinement in the Order that allegedly holds them to 31.6(a) only. In their own words: " Dear Mr Ravenscroft
With regard to your email below, paragraph 4 of the Order of Chief Master Marsh dated 5 September 2016 (“the Order”) states “each party shall give disclosure by list limited to any document on which that party intends to rely in the action” (emphasis added). As my client does not intend to rely on the instructions given to the ‘Commercial Boat Services people’ (as you refer to them) and those ‘directing the role of the “Debt Collector” then they have not been listed. The Judge asked the parties whether they agreed to standard disclosure being restricted in this way during the hearing, and asked Mr Moore if you understood and agreed to this, to which he replied that you did. " [my emphasis] I have no recollection of this at all, and certainly did not understand there to be any such restriction on disclosure. It has become imperative that we obtain the transcript of the proceedings I fear. What does your copy of the order say?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 30, 2016 23:57:08 GMT
I do think that after reading this thread that for CRT the shit is going to hit the fan in court. I just hope that they dont go down the changes to the act route to gain the powers that they think they need to manage the waterways properly You can relax on that score, they may neither promote nor oppose new primary legislation. that was a power BW had that was removed from them as CaRT. Any new legisaltion would have to come from parliament's own initiative, although CaRT could do what the EA did, and try a Statutory Instrument as a patch-up measure. But as the EA discovered, there are limitations to what the SoS may do via that route.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 31, 2016 0:03:13 GMT
What does your copy of the order say? Paragraph 4: ". . . each party shall give disclosure by list limited to any document on which that party intends to rely in the action . . ." Paragraph 6: " Each party serve on each other the witness Statements of the oral evidence which the party serving the Statements intends to rely on in relation to any issues of fact to be decided at the trial . . ."
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 31, 2016 0:10:41 GMT
What does your copy of the order say? Paragraph 4: ". . . each party shall give disclosure by list limited to any document on which that party intends to rely in the action . . ." Paragraph 6: " Each party serve on each other the witness Statements of the oral evidence which the party serving the Statements intends to rely on in relation to any issues of fact to be decided at the trial . . ." OK I would suggest a letter to Chief Master explaining that you were under the impression that the following would be disclosed, x, y, z, and why they are important to the case and the court. Is it possible to so order disclosure and examination.Inspection
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 31, 2016 0:14:19 GMT
BTW make sure there is nothing else you want or need. He might give one bite of the cherry but I doubt two.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 31, 2016 0:32:53 GMT
It would be a disclosure application, long time since I have done one. Last one I did the other side collapsed as soon as the order was granted. CPR 31 Standard disclosure – what documents are to be disclosed 31.6 Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only– (a) the documents on which he relies; and (b) the documents which – (i) adversely affect his own case; (ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or (iii) support another party’s case; and (c) the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction. Back to top This is what we thought we could rely on, but Shoosmiths are relying on a supposed refinement in the Order that allegedly holds them to 31.6(a) only. In their own words: " Dear Mr Ravenscroft
With regard to your email below, paragraph 4 of the Order of Chief Master Marsh dated 5 September 2016 (“the Order”) states “each party shall give disclosure by list limited to any document on which that party intends to rely in the action” (emphasis added). As my client does not intend to rely on the instructions given to the ‘Commercial Boat Services people’ (as you refer to them) and those ‘directing the role of the “Debt Collector” then they have not been listed. The Judge asked the parties whether they agreed to standard disclosure being restricted in this way during the hearing, and asked Mr Moore if you understood and agreed to this, to which he replied that you did. " [my emphasis] I have no recollection of this at all, and certainly did not understand there to be any such restriction on disclosure. It has become imperative that we obtain the transcript of the proceedings I fear. As the Order is very clear that each party can list ANY document upon which they intend to rely, cannot C&RT's own 'Quotation', forwarded to Leigh specifying what they were demanding in payment prior to returning his boat, including the claimed unpaid 'Licence' fees and the cost for the DC's attendance, be listed by Leigh in his disclosures ?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 31, 2016 1:05:31 GMT
As the Order is very clear that each party can list ANY document upon which they intend to rely, cannot C&RT's own 'Quotation', forwarded to Leigh specifying what they were demanding in payment prior to returning his boat, and including the cost for the DC's attendance, be listed by Leigh in his disclosures ? Of course, and the listed "Debt Collecter"'s hourly rate is listed for x hours attendance at Newark Marina - this has been raised in the pleadings already. CaRT, however, are naturally skating over this; having the gentleman identified and his role clarified would be further nails in the coffin and would demonstrate that it was intended at the planning stage of the seizure, that debt collection would be at the heart of the exercise.
|
|