|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 18, 2017 8:46:35 GMT
Latest update is that Leigh has lodged his Supplementary Bundle with the Court of Appeal by the extended deadline. He now has to consider putting in an application for permission to use material not before the judge.
As to the Costs Appeal, he has added material to the bundle as requested by the Court and Shoosmiths, while as of yesterday Shoosmiths added yet more documents for the Bundle [mostly Garner's evidence of several years ago]. The hearing date for this is still down for November first. He has been unable, since February this year, to get any response to his applications for pro bono assistance for the hearing. It is very odd.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 18, 2017 8:30:30 GMT
There has never ever ever been a charge for pleasure boats on the bridgewater canal. Just to recap following my very swift review of such legislation as I have [most of it]. In my current understanding: - From 1794, pleasure boats could be charged whenever they went through a lock. From 1885 pleasure boats could be charged for using the ‘communications’ at Barton [presumably the swing bridge?]. From 1894 pleasure boats could be charged for mooring on the towpath or at company facilities for longer than overnight. From 1960 pleasure boats could be charged for entering or leaving the canal; could be charged for remaining in Runcorn Dock and for use and occupation of any berth in that dock. Strictly speaking therefore, every transit of the canal could be charged for even if you returned the next day. None of this has anything to do with the 1961 Byelaws or the 1962 Transport Act of course [although the latter allowed the charge levels to be pegged at whatever the company wanted without restriction – amended in 2012 to the extent that such charges must now be reasonable]. I have still found nothing that authorises licensing or registration of pleasure boats.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 17, 2017 23:06:20 GMT
More work ahead then. In some ways I hope they hurry up, so that we get it sorted and I can hit the road again; I am getting itchy feet.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 17, 2017 19:56:06 GMT
Another interesting facet of charging history, which I had overlooked – the 2012 Order will have overturned the liberty granted under s.52 of the 1962 Transport Act to charge whatever they liked! From 2012 the charges must be reasonable. That turns the clock back to the same situation as obtained with the British Transport Commission back in the fifties.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 16, 2017 10:14:24 GMT
As a counterpoint to what I have said respecting the expansion of the definition of boats subject to entry and exit tolls, I offer this little curiosity -
1894 Order
Special Sections Applicable only to the Bridgewater Canals Undertaking of the Manchester Ship Canal Company
(i) “Where merchandise is conveyed by a bye-trader in a boat which passes through one or more locks on the canal, the Company may charge a minimum toll of five shillings.
For an empty boat which passes through one or more locks on the canal, or which passes on to or from the canal from or on to the canal of any other Company, the Company may charge the sum of five shillings . . .”
“If two or more narrowboats (whether carrying cargo or empty) capable of passing through a lock alongside one another, pass through a lock at the same time, they shall be reckoned, for the purposes of this section, as one boat.”
1960 Act
s.6 “In the schedule to the Order of 1894 the special sections applicable only to the Bridgewater undertaking shall have effect as if – ( b ) the following definition was added at the end of paragraph (vi) of those sections:- “the term ‘vessel’ includes any vessel ship lighter keel barge boat raft pontoon and craft of any kind howsoever navigated propelled or moved”.”
That the ‘special section’ was to be distinct from the ‘general section’ in respect of relevant craft is evidenced by that addition, because the general section had already defined “boat” as including “all vessels, barges, keels, sloops, steam vessels, compartment boats, and other craft of every description, however propelled or moved, using the canal”, although expressly excluding pleasure boats.
BUT – whether through carelessness or some other reason, whereas in the general section the word “boat” is used throughout, and the definition of “boat” applies [with the exclusion of pleasure boats] and that includes “vessels”, in the special section [which also uses the term “boat” throughout, and the context refers solely to cargo carrying boats] “boat” is not defined, “vessel” is [without the pleasure boat exemption] – and yet the word “vessel” appears nowhere in that section, so the added definition could be read as utterly without meaning, having no application to any wording in the special section!
So although I would not myself wish to hinge an argument based on this disparity, I can see where a professional tasked with the job of proving that pleasure boats were excluded from the provisions of the special section as with the general section, could see a loophole in the obviously intended import of the 1960 addition, and argue for the application of the ambiguity rule against the Company, in favour of the public!
From my experience they would have a fat chance of succeeding, but at least it is a plausible argument.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2017 19:57:29 GMT
Richard is a glad handing politician who is doing as he is told, which leads to the question. Who's pulling his strings? His purse?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2017 18:56:13 GMT
whos the relevant person at crt to contact, Richard himself? I can think of no more useless and uninterested individual, for all that he ought to be the one to turn to. Certainly include that waste of space in any correspondence, but concentrate on the legal and PR people as a primary target.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2017 18:52:24 GMT
whilst that would seem the decent thing to do, with the current regime at crt ii thinks it's encouraging peel to think they can do what they like. CaRT are a uselessly jobsworth centred lot at their highest levels, despite many worthy employees at the ground level. As top executives they ought to possess the management skills to negotiate with such as Peel, and to have the balls to try. Peel can do what they like within their legislative powers; it will take committed and creative diplomacy to effect a change in current thinking - and I agree that this is absent from the existing executive.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2017 18:44:31 GMT
But the alternative is to do nothing, and just have a whinge. It is not just gigoguy who has called for action after all, and if many individuals shoved their oar in, it could make a difference. CaRT cannot force the issue, other than to ban Bridgewater boats from entering CaRT waters without full licences. In such a case, the currently complacent Bridgewater boaters might start their own campaign to hit where it hurts.
From what I have gleaned so far, they are the ones being screwed over most, whether they are happy with that or not.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2017 18:13:49 GMT
So what would you suggest Gigoguy do then? Carry on investigating for now. And carry on campaigning for CaRT to get behind their boaters for a change, to encourage a return to the historic 'gentleman's agreement'.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2017 18:11:54 GMT
Full marks to gigoguy for highlighting the problem and provoking the research that got some at least of the answers - the Peel lawyers came up with nothing but bullshit, and anyone relying on the paucity of their responses could have found themselves in deep trouble, if Peel wanted to make an issue of it.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2017 17:49:15 GMT
The situation regarding detention of boats needs to appreciated also; it is far worse than with CaRT!
Boats and any goods may be detained for any sums owing under the Acts – whether for fees, passage toll, moorings etc. The boats are already on the company’s property, so any debt creates an automatic lien such that they can prevent the boat being removed from the canal, even if they do not seize it under s.9.
In the event that a boat owing sums ‘escapes’ the canal, the company can detain anything else of yours – another boat for example, whether that had paid charges or not – and sell it to recover the debt [giving you the remainder of course].
The company is even empowered under 1894 Act to act as bailiffs and to visit whatever premises you may have out of their jurisdiction [should you have escaped that], to take control of goods.
Naturally, The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act will now control how they may go about recovering their sums respecting a detained boat, while the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act will now govern the exercise of their bailiff powers for boats that have left.
The remaining alternative for them of course, is to sue for the debt in court as normal.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2017 17:47:23 GMT
Herewith my own hasty synopsis of the relevant Acts affecting PRN & pleasure boat charges on the Bridgewater Canal. Question marks denote legislation I do not have copies of.
1759 Bridgewater Canal Act s.29 - 2 interpretations possible respecting PRN: no mention of pleasure boats, but ambiguity could potentially support use of any boat at all.
1760 Bridgewater Canal Act ?
1762 Bridgewater Canal Act ?
1766 Bridgewater Canal Act Riparian owner/occupiers to have free use of pleasure boats without charge, so long as no lock passage without consent. Note: if riparians granted free use of pleasure boats, implication is that others have not been.
1794 Bridgewater Canal Act s.73 Riparian boats may pass locks if either: a) consent of company, or b) pay tonnage equal to 6 tons. Note: combining this section with previous, would suggest that ‘consent’ in 1766 was an ex-gratia one, and that henceforward an alternative to such consent was payment of a fixed charge. It might seem from this that even if consent for something was needed from the company, they were free to give or refuse that consent, but not on the basis of charging for that consent – perhaps.
1795 Bridgewater Canal Act ?
1847 Harbour Clauses Act ?
1870 Bridgewater Rules - nothing relevant
1885 Manchester Shipping Canal Act Interpretation: “vessels” includes “craft of every class & description however propelled.” s.62 provides that any riparian owner/occupier may construct wharves, landing places, side basins and lay-byes with suitable access to the canal, free of wharfage rates. s.128 provides that the company may demand dues in respect of every vessel specified in 3rd schedule to the Act on entering or leaving the canal [relating only to commercial craft]. s.129 provides for charges for carriage of both passengers & cargo s.130 provides that “light or empty vessels shall be at liberty to pass one way between the extreme points before mentioned or any intermediate places toll free.” s.138 provides that charges may be made for any vessel using the ‘communications’ to be built at Barton, unless repairs interrupt passage. s.139 provides that use of the canal for conveying fertiliser for field within a mile of the canal is free. s.149 provides that the company may licence lighters s.196/7 provide that the company may licence steam powered tugs for towing s.196 added byelaw powers – for regulating use of wharves, landing places, quays, basins and lay byes, but not private ones; for regulating speed limits of steam-powered vessels of all sorts; for regulating the T&C’s and charges for the grant of any licences as aforementioned; s.213 provides that unless expressly provided in this 1885 Act, nothing is to extend to prejudicially affect the provisions of the Bridgewater & etc Canal Acts Note: there are 2 classes of commercial vessel that they get power to licence here [which is later extended to other classes] but not including pleasure boats.
1886 MSC Act ?
1887 MSC Act?
1888 MSC (additional lands) Act
1888 MSC (alteration of works) Act
1888 Railway and Canal Traffic Act - qualifies MSC under Transport Act 1962 s.52.
1890 MSC (tidal openings & etc) Act
1890 MSC Act - s.19 extension of Byelaw powers – nothing relevant
1891 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1893 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1893 Manchester Corporation (ship canal) Act - nothing relevant
1893 MSC (additional capital) Act - nothing relevant
1893 MSC (surplus lands) Act - nothing relevant
1894 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1894 Canal Rates Bridgewater & etc Act General Schedule applicable to all listed canals s.7(viii) expressly excludes charges for the boat occupation of any private wharf on the canal, in any private lay-by or in any private canal basin. Also provides for free overnight mooring at any Company berth, and for any reasonable time when not at work [providing no impediment to navigation or the facility]. Amended later in 1960. s.25 provides that “nothing in this schedule shall apply to pleasure boats or affect the tolls or charges (if any) which the Company are authorised to make in respect of such boats under the provisions of any Act of Parliament”. Note: the company were authorised by the 1794 Act to charge for pleasure boats to pass through a lock
Special section Applicable Only to the Bridgewater Canals s.(i) provides that any empty boat passing through one or more locks, or entering the canal from another navigation, may be charged 5 shillings [unless on a return passage having paid toll on cargo carried Note 1: on its own, this could be interpreted as applying to any pleasure boat - which will fit the definition of an empty boat so far as carriage of cargo is concerned. The query would arise: does the special section come under the s.25 exemption of the general section? It seems to me that it must, but it is possibly arguable, demanding more attention. IF it could be said to apply to pleasure boats, then a charge for entering or leaving the canal from or to an adjoining navigation is authorised. It would not affect the freedoms of riparian boats, so long as they remained at private berths, and when leaving those to navigate did not either use a lock or leave the canal. Note 2: – on reading the 1960 Act, it is apparent that the special section did not include pleasure boats, hence the remedy of the additional clause.
1896 MSC Act - extension of byelaw powers for Bridgewater – nothing relevant
1897 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1900 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1904 (finances) Act - nothing relevant
1907 (various powers) Act - nothing relevant
1907 MSC (Bridgewater) Act – nothing relevant
1911 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1912 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1913 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1919 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1920 MSC Act - increase of Bridgewater rates; nothing relevant
1924 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1925 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1926 MSC (general powers) Act - nothing relevant
1926 MSC (staff superannuation) Act - nothing relevant
1928 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1933 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1936 MSC Act - s.32 removal of sunk stranded or abandoned vessels – not relevant
1945 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1947 Transport Act - nothing relevant
1949 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1950 MSC Act s.18 increase Bridgewater rates; s.25 abandon Bridgewater lock; undertakings re: other locks [repealed 1975]
1952 MSC Act - increases Bridgewater rates
1954 Transport Charges &etc (miscellaneous provisions) Act – applied national charges schemes to private undertakings – nothing relevant – abolished in 1962
1956 MSC Act - ?
1960 MSC Act s.3 - application of Harbour Clauses Act 1847 – not relevant s.4 – additional canal tolls s.6 – company can charge any boat at all that remains in Runcorn Dock, and for use & occupation of any berth in Runcorn Docks s.6( b ) – extends definition of vessel to special section of the 1894 Rates Act applicable to Bridgewater, to embrace every type of craft, however propelled [hence pleasure boats]. Hence the entry & exit toll now applied to pleasure boats. s.9 – powers of removal of Bridgewater boats left therein without consent Note: consent not required for boats at private property/moorings, but is required for longer than overnight on company premises &/or towpath, for lock passage if not paid for, & for entering and exiting the canal. Schedule 3 – articles to be carried by pleasure craft in the harbour
1961 Byelaws - nothing relevant
1962 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1962 Transport Act - applies s.43(1)( b ) (2) (3) (5) & (6) to the charges of the Bridgewater
1966 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1970 MSC Revision Order - extension of byelaw powers
1975 MSC Revision Order - nothing relevant
1976 MSC (black bear canal) Act - abolished PRN, but nothing relevant to Bridgewater Note: I have not seen the original Act for the waterway affected; if couched in the same terms as the Bridgewater, might affect the interpretation of PRN there.
1983 MSC Revision Order - nothing relevant
1984 MSC Revision Order - nothing relevant
1987 MSC Revision Order - nothing relevant
1990 MSC Revision Order - nothing relevant
1992 MSC Revision Order - nothing relevant
2012 Bridgewater Canal (Transfer of Undertakings) Order s.4 - affirms existing byelaws, extends byelaw making powers to include registration, T&C’s etc, subject to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. s.7 – affirms power to make reasonable charges, though that subject - s.7( c ) - to any prior enactment which “expressly or impliedly provides for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibits the making of any charge.” Note: that last respecting “reasonable” is odd, given the TA 1962 which had specifically removed the need for reasonableness in charges – maybe government were having a change of heart?
Apart from the missing Acts, there will be sections bearing on consent for berthing at private premises which I have skimmed over and which I don’t feel like going back to look for at the moment.
So far as PRN is concerned, it is now irrelevant, given that Parliamentary sanction for transit charges to be levied has been confirmed.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 12, 2017 21:32:26 GMT
It was much more closely run this year than last, wasn't it?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 12, 2017 20:14:59 GMT
Happy for my photo to be in the calendar - and I would like one too.
|
|