|
Post by bargemast on Feb 1, 2019 10:12:00 GMT
In my experience they tend to die pdq on retirement as their motivation is power through bully boy tactics, they quickly lose momentum, and die Yeah, they probably just get bullied at home by the wife then. "Move your feet!" (when vacuuming). "The car needs washing!". "The cat litter needs changing." If that's how Pirrko is treating you when your home Ross, it may be time to get in touch with a husband protection organisation . Peter.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 1, 2019 10:36:27 GMT
As in the thread title ! - last Monday morning, the 25th, they kicked off at Nottingham County Court with a Directions Hearing in a now nearly three year old Claim against me - issued on April Fools day 2016 - for boat removal and an Injunction founded in their imagined and self-conferred powers to 'licence' boats exercising the common law right of navigation on the Trent Navigation and the other river waterways listed in Schedule 1 to the 1971 British Waterways Act. According to the Costs Schedule they tried to put the wind up me with prior to the hearing, last Monday's proceedings set the C&RT - LAGS back something in excess of £5,000 Sorry to hear they seem determined to continue this ridiculous case against yourself Tony. What was the outcome of the directions hearing on the 25h?
|
|
|
Post by patty on Feb 1, 2019 19:12:07 GMT
As in the thread title ! - last Monday morning, the 25th, they kicked off at Nottingham County Court with a Directions Hearing in a now nearly three year old Claim against me - issued on April Fools day 2016 - for boat removal and an Injunction founded in their imagined and self-conferred powers to 'licence' boats exercising the common law right of navigation on the Trent Navigation and the other river waterways listed in Schedule 1 to the 1971 British Waterways Act. According to the Costs Schedule they tried to put the wind up me with prior to the hearing, last Monday's proceedings set the C&RT - LAGS back something in excess of £5,000 Sorry to hear they seem determined to continue this ridiculous case against yourself Tony. What was the outcome of the directions hearing on the 25h? I wonder if its now 'personal' as apposed to just a case... If personal there may be more determination to carry on.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 1, 2019 21:23:05 GMT
As in the thread title ! - last Monday morning, the 25th, they kicked off at Nottingham County Court with a Directions Hearing in a now nearly three year old Claim against me - issued on April Fools day 2016 - for boat removal and an Injunction founded in their imagined and self-conferred powers to 'licence' boats exercising the common law right of navigation on the Trent Navigation and the other river waterways listed in Schedule 1 to the 1971 British Waterways Act. According to the Costs Schedule they tried to put the wind up me with prior to the hearing, last Monday's proceedings set the C&RT - LAGS back something in excess of £5,000 Sorry to hear they seem determined to continue this ridiculous case against yourself Tony. What was the outcome of the directions hearing on the 25th? Once Leigh Ravenscroft accepted C&RT's 'bribe' to drop his Appeal against the breathtakingly outrageous Asplin High Court Judgment, it was inevitable that they would resurrect this old Claim against me, although it has to be said that, in keeping with their reluctance to have the MNC and PRN questions exposed to too much thoughtful scrutiny in the High Court, they made two determined attempts to 'railroad' this through the Nottingham Court in what would have amounted to nothing more than the usual rubber stamping exercise they get away with in most of their pseudo-legal boat stealing charades. They had applied to the Court for an Order for the removal of my boat plus the usual Injunction without a hearing, and supported by the skeleton argument bollocks reproduced below :- IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NOTTINGHAM _________________________________________________________________
CLAIMANT’S SKELETON ARGUMENT FOR THE DIRECTIONS HEARING ON 25 JANUARY 2019 _________________________________________________________________
1. This is a Directions Hearing in respect of a claim which was issued on 1 April 2016, and subsequently stayed on 17 October 2016 pending the outcome of a claim brought in the High Court - Leigh Ravenscroft v Canal & River Trust (case no HC-2015-001905) (“The High Court Claim”). The Claimant seeks removal of the Defendant’s boat, Halcyon Daze (“the Boat”), from the inland waterways owned and managed by the Claimant, as the Boat is unlicensed. The Defendant resists on the grounds of an incorrect interpretation of the meaning of “Main Navigable Channel”(“MNC”), which was the subject of the aforementioned High Court Claim.
2. Following issue of the claim on 1 April 2016, deemed served on the Defendant on 22 April 2016, the Defendant filed an Acknowledgement of Service on 10 May 2016; this was out of time, as the 14 days from service of the claim form in which to file the Acknowledgement of Service under CPR 8.3 expired on 6 May 2016. 3. By an order dated 5 July 2016 of His Honour Judge Godsmark QC, the Defendant was ordered to file a witness statement in response to that of the Claimant by 4pm on 29 July 2016. The Defendant failed to comply with this order, and has only provided the Claimant with an unsigned and undated copy of a witness statement.
4. As appears from the unsigned Witness Statement and Acknowledgement of Service, the Defendant seeks to defend the claim on the following grounds:
a. The Boat is on the River Trent upon which a Common Law Public Right of Navigation exists and accordingly vessels thereon do not require a boat licence issued by the Navigation Authority; and
b. A Pleasure Boat Certificate is only required when a boat is used or kept in the MNC; the Boat is moored against the bank and is therefore outside of the MNC.
5. As the issues raised by the Defendant were similar to those being brought by Mr Ravenscroft in the High Court Claim, with regards to the MNC and requirements to licence the Boat in its current location, the claim was stayed pending the outcome of the High Court Claim by order dated 17 October 2016.
6. Judgement was given in the Claimant’s favour in the High Court Claim on 24 July 2017 by LJ Asplin, affirming the Claimant’s position that the MNC of any canal or river waterway is bank to bank, rather than a section down the central fairway. A copy of this Judgment is provided for the court’s attention, and the Claimant suggests that in particular paragraphs 60-71 are read which relate to the issue of the MNC.
7. Mr Ravenscroft sought to appeal the judgment in the High Court Claim, but subsequently agreed to withdraw his appeal, which was dismissed by order dated 12 September 2018.
8. As the Defendant accepts that a Pleasure Boat Certificate (now referred to by the Claimant under the umbrella term “licence”) is required for the Boat when in the MNC, and as the High Court Claim judgment has determined that the part of the River Trent upon which the Boat is currently located is part of the MNC, then the Defendant does not have an arguable defence to the claim. The Claimant therefore respectfully requests that an order is made in the terms sought.
Lucy Barry Senior Solicitor-Advocate LaGS Canal & River Trust_____________________________________________________________ As can be seen from the above, they feed their megalomania and their imagined powers to 'licence' the use of pleasure craft on 'river waterways' via the constant, repetitive blurring of the distinction between a boat 'Licence', which entitles and/or covers the holder to use their boat on ALL canals and river waterways under C&RT control without the need for any additional documentation [in the form of a Pleasure Boat (registration) Certificate to cover river use] and the 'Pleasure Boat Certificate' itself, which simply identifies a specific vessel but does NOT authorize, entitle, or permit the holder to do ANYTHING at all. C&RT's specious argument is founded wholly in the fantasy that they have statutory powers to permit or deny the exercise of a common law right of navigation by means of a licensing regime. In truth, they don't have any such powers, but they do have the statutory power, and obligation, to impose and enforce a REGISTRATION regime, put in place under the 1971 BW Act to facilitate the identification and regulation of pleasure craft making use of only the PRN river waterways and avoiding the man-made canals. C&RT being C&RT, however, they're not about to allow that inconvenient fact to deter them from lying to the boating public and knowingly misleading the Courts into believing that their fantasies are enshrined in statute. At the hearing on 25 January 2019, the Court rejected the LaGS argument for a 'rubber stamping Order' and ordered a full hearing for the first available date with a suitable 'time slot', which is yet to be advised/listed.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 2, 2019 6:57:50 GMT
For those interested in the arguments put to the Court by both sides, here are my 'script notes' from the 25 January Directions Hearing :-
1) My boat, “Halcyon Daze”, is currently kept laid-up and out of commission on a private mooring on the river Trent at Barton-in-Fabis in Nottinghamshire, which is a river waterway listed in Schedule 1 to the BW Act 1971. The Claimant seeks the removal and exclusion of my boat from all the inland waterways owned and managed by the Claimant on the specious grounds that the Boat is unlicensed. In asking the Court for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief to this end the Claimant is both seeking the Court's approval to act outwith and beyond it's statutory powers and is asking the Court to make an Order depriving the Defendant of his entitlement to exercise the common law public right of navigation on any and all of the river waterways listed in Schedule 1 to the Act, for which no form of 'Licence' is required or issued under any of the legislation by which the Claimant is bound.
2) Sections 4 and 5 of the '71 Act conditioned the common law public right of navigation on the river waterways now under the control and management of the Claimant, the C&RT, by way of imposing only mandatory registration, in the form of a Pleasure Boat Certificate, of pleasure boats kept or used in the main navigable channel of the river waterways listed in Schedule 1 of the Act, whereas Section 5(1) of the Act provides that boats licensed to use the Claimant's canals, upon which the statutory public right of navigation was extinguished under the Transport Act 1968, are exempted from the requirement to be registered to use the scheduled river waterways by way of holding a separate Pleasure Boat Certificate.
3) Despite the clear distinctions drawn between a 'Pleasure Boat Certificate' and a boat 'Licence' in the BW Act 1971 [Section 5(1)], the BW Act 1983 [Section 4(1)], and the BW Act 1995 [Section 17(1)] the Claimant dishonestly describes and issues the Pleasure Boat (registration) Certificate as a “Rivers only Licence”. This deception is taken to extremes in the 'Notice of Intended Removal of a Vessel' issued under Section 8 of the BW Act 1983 by the Claimant in respect of my boat 'Halcyon Daze', moored to private land on a scheduled river waterway, and which falsely states that the boat is - “there without lawful authority”.
4) Section 8(1) of the BW Act 1983 empowers the Claimant to remove any vessel which is - “sunk, stranded or abandoned in any inland waterway, [ . . . . . . . . . ] or which is left or moored therein without lawful authority”. My boat, “Halcyon Daze” is not sunk, stranded or abandoned, and nor is it left or moored in the river Trent without lawful authority. The 'lawful authority' for the vessel to be kept and used on this scheduled river waterway is the common law public right of navigation, and the issuing of the 'Notice of Intended Removal' under Section 8(1) of the BW Act is therefore both unwarranted and unlawful.
5) A further element in this dispute is the question of the extent of the main navigable channel of the river Trent under the control of the Claimant. Section 4(1) of the BW Act 1971 limits the mandatory registration of vessels to those kept or used in the MNC. It is a matter of provable historical fact that the main navigable channel of the river Trent was never dredged or maintained to a maximum width of any greater than 60 feet, and I have in my possession a map produced by the Claimant in 2015 showing the (approximately) 180 feet wide section of the river Trent where my boat is moored to private land which forms the river bank at this location. The map is marked with a wide green band of what is described in the map key/legend as - “unnavigable river” along both banks, with a darker grey/blue line in the centre of the river marked as - “navigable river”. It is my contention therefore that as my boat is moored within the Claimants marked band of 'unnavigable' river that it cannot by definition be within the MNC. The Claimants are on record in written communications, and in both this and another action, as insisting that the MNC extends the full width of the river waterway from bank to bank, and that the 'unnavigable river' marked on their map forms part of and is included in the river waterway's 'navigable' channel.
6) The above mentioned map was available to be introduced in evidence at the Appeal of the High Court decision with regard to the MNC question in Claim No. HC-2015-001905 – Leigh Ravenscroft -v- Canal & River Trust. In consequence of the withdrawal of the Appeal following the Respondent's offer, conditional on withdrawal of the Appeal, to forego the substantial costs award in the Judgment made against the claimant in the originating claim, the Canal & River Trust have escaped the prospect of explaining to the Appeal Court how substantial marked areas of 'unnavigable' river along the banks can be held to be part of and included in a 'navigable' river channel marked in the centre of the river on their own map.
7) Under CPR 38.7 a Claimant is obliged to seek the permission of the Court before commencing another claim arising out of facts which are the same or substantially the same as those relating to an earlier discontinued claim. The facts put forward by the Claimant and the grounds for this Claim are identical to those in County Court Claim No. A00NG769, for the same Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and which was discontinued by the Claimant on 13 March 2015 after having had sight of my Defence to that Claim and stating to the Court that my annual application to renew the 12-monthly Pleasure Boat Certificate for my boat in June 2014 had, in their words, rendered Claim No. A00NG769 - “worthless and academic”. To the best of my knowledge no such permission from the Court has been sought or granted in respect of this Claim.
8) I submit that there is no case to answer in these proceedings and I ask the Court that this Claim be struck out.
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 2, 2019 9:30:45 GMT
Thanks for those posts Tony, well at least the judge didn't just rubber stamp there claim and it's going to a full hearing, which hopefully means he/she realises that there are issues to be looked at. Carts insistence in using the term liscence and what it implies,to the issuing of pleasure boat certificates is quite incredible really. I thought they might have had the sense to not try this in court, to just use it in their correspondence with boaters is bad enough but to effectively try to pull the wool over the judges eyes over this issue is arrogance of the highest order and just shows how out of control in respect to the legislation they are. Good luck with this going forward.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Feb 2, 2019 10:05:41 GMT
I hope that a "real judge" will deal with your case Tony, someone that has taken the time to check-out that what you've written is true, and what C&RT have written and are trying to push through is a huge pile of BS.
Hope that they'll fixe a date soon, and that you'll be able to give us an update on the successful (for you) finish of this case.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 2, 2019 10:07:02 GMT
Presumably the Court did not accede to your strike-out suggestion (which has to be formalised as an Application I think, anyway).
Reference para. 4, do you have the EA’s skeleton from one of the Trotman cases, in which they make the same argument? The corollary issue arising is, of course, that a specific penalty is imposed for failure to register, if para.5 does not succeed – respecting which the reasons for granting permission to appeal in the Ravenscroft case are surely pertinent. I believe I posted a copy in the relevant thread.
It is curious to note from your previous post the explanation from CaRT that “licence” continues to be used as a 'convenience' term only; in a legal context that must be a remarkable bit of twisting in the wind. It could nonetheless still be accepted I daresay.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 2, 2019 10:36:21 GMT
I don't have the time or inclination to do this (at present) but if I "lived in another world" (different circumstances) then I believe that in cases such as this, all relevant information should be kept, and a dossier of each person involved made. The lies must be tracked down to their source, and that individual who invented them be hounded to the end of time. All the information should be stored for historical reference. The people dossiered should include the judges, as it seems some of these are decidedly 'iffy'. Financial records, too, should be noted and analysed - who got what and why.
Standing back, it seems that CRT do have personal vendettas. Filthy, health-hazard about-to-sink unlicenced boats (clearly unlicenced for MANY years) are allowed to float upon CRT's Holy Waters whilst people who have got up their nose and exposed them for their ignorance and mistakes and waste of public money are targeted. Yes, of course there should be control and management of income from licencing, but going down roads which are too technical for anyone to understand (and really, are they worth pursuing?) is bordering on psychopathic viciousness. My answer, in this particular case with Mr TD, would be for someone with balls at CRT to say "This is getting silly!", get CRT to make an sincere apology to TD, give him a boating licence for life, and a substantial monetary compensation. Then get on with doing what you're supposed to be doing, dredging the canals and concentrate on getting tourists over here to hire boats and pump some more money into the system, and making things better for boaters all round.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 3, 2019 10:24:25 GMT
It is curious to note from your previous post the explanation from CaRT that “licence” continues to be used as a 'convenience' term only; in a legal context that must be a remarkable bit of twisting in the wind. It could nonetheless still be accepted I daresay. Whilst I expect your right, let's hope not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2019 10:29:57 GMT
My answer, in this particular case with Mr TD, would be for someone with balls at CRT to say "This is getting silly!", get CRT to make an sincere apology to TD, give him a boating licence for life, and a substantial monetary compensation. This song from my old schoolmate comes to mind
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 3, 2019 10:49:07 GMT
This C&RT styled 'Licensing Manager' seems to have undergone a remarkable period of enlightenment between 30 November and 17 December last year. I know that I'm fairly well known for my connections with the river Trent, but I felt that the mode of address in the first of these two e-mails was a little over the top :-
Ben Ashdown <Ben.Ashdown@canalrivertrust.org.uk>
Fri, Nov 30, 2018
Mr Trent
Thank you for your enquiry re a ‘Pleasure Boat Certificate’.
Unfortunately this is not a term we in Boat Licencing recognise. If you wish to use a boat of any kind on our waterways you are required to obtain a licence. Terms and conditions, pricing, discounts and exemptions can all be found on our website using the link below.
Regards Ben Ashdown Licensing Manager
. . . followed up with this :-
Ben Ashdown <Ben.Ashdown@canalrivertrust.org.uk>
Mon, Dec 17, 2018, 4:18 PM
Dear Mr. Dunkley,
Thank you for your e-mail dated 12 December 2018.
I have enclosed a copy of our licence application form and a table of our charges and fees. The Rivers Only Licence is valid for ‘River Waterways’ defined in Schedule 1 of the British Waterways Act 1971, as amended, and constitutes a “pleasure boat certificate” for the purposes of that Act.
Regards
Ben Ashdown Licensing Manager _________________________________________________________
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 3, 2019 11:40:58 GMT
It is curious to note from your previous post the explanation from CaRT that “licence” continues to be used as a 'convenience' term only; in a legal context that must be a remarkable bit of twisting in the wind. It could nonetheless still be accepted I daresay. Whilst I expect your right, let's hope not. The essential point Tony is making from this, in case it seems a mere pedantic complaint over nomenclature, is the relationship between permissive use of waterway and use as of right. That has direct bearing on the applicable grounds of s.8 when relying on the claim of being ‘without lawful authority’. When Alistair Trotman argued that he could not be accused of trespass on the Thames by reason of the boat’s registration, the EA countered by noting that the registration did not confer any right to be on the Thames; that right arose from the statutory public right of navigation. Hence, the registration was not a conferring of lawful authority to keep and use a boat on the Thames. The corollary is, of course, that if the registration certificate does not confer lawful authority to be on the waterway, then failure to have up-to-date registration is irrelevant to the subject of lawful authority, and in the BW context, the relevant phrase in s.8 cannot apply – only the specific 1971 Act penalties apply. A boat is not present on a BW scheduled river waterway without lawful authority, in other words, whether registered or not – if unregistered, it is subject to the specified penalties only. In the relevant EA legislation, the roughly equivalent boat removal powers were specifically drafted to relate to absence of boat registration, absent in the BW legislation (despite the 1983 Act being subsequent to both licensing and boat registration requirements). This was one of the examples I gave when objecting to the use of ‘without lawful authority’ in the Middle Level Bill without clear definition of the intended application of the term. It would seem pertinent that the Select Committee and the Commissioners added definitions accordingly. However the failure of Asplin J (as she then was) to recognise the point lends credence to my somewhat cynical statement regarding Court acceptance that the distinction would be recognised.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 3, 2019 11:52:28 GMT
Whilst I expect your right, let's hope not However the failure of Asplin J (as she then was) to recognise the point lends credence to my somewhat cynical statement regarding Court acceptance that the distinction would be recognised. I tend to share you cynicism over the issue, but thanks for the clarity. I would never accuse Tony of pedantry over the issue, as I have an understanding of its relevance. It doesn't just effect Tony there are a number of boats on the same stretch of water and also a number of boaters on the Yorkshire Ouse that have been effected by these issues as well.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 3, 2019 12:32:35 GMT
There is also the vital point over geographical limitation of the registration requirement, which Tony covers in his paras. 5 & 6. I would have placed this first, then followed with the lawful authority argument as an ‘in the alternative’ position.
It is always a gamble respecting what calibre of judge you end up with of course; some judges - at all levels - are capable of clear and disinterested appreciation of the issues. Whereas Asplin J refused permission to appeal her judgment, being of the view that her reasons disposed of any room for argument, the Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Floyd observed a year ago, when granting Leigh permission to appeal – “the issue of statutory construction is, on the language alone, arguable and may have importance for other cases. It is also arguable that the respondent’s use of section 8 went beyond its proper purpose.”
The statutory interpretation angle ought to have been regarded as the definitive ground for dismissing all CaRT’s arguments over the MNC, on the centuries old rule respecting the resolution of ambiguities within private legislation, but the judge in Leigh’s case contrived a less than fully honest bypassing of that rule.
We have possibly the finest judicial system in the world, but it is still unavoidably reliant on merely human administrators.
|
|