|
Post by kris on Oct 7, 2016 10:39:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Oct 7, 2016 10:42:31 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 11:34:09 GMT
Personally I suspect it's the start of a move away from shoesmiths. With ever increasing legal bills, I frankly tend to believe the trustees are becoming concerned. Half a million quid in 2015, that's a fair old slice of the budget, and in all honesty, at what return?
Very small gains on what is seemingly a small issue. Yet massive costs.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Oct 7, 2016 11:52:46 GMT
£30-£35k per annum doesn't seem a very high salary for a lawyer?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 7, 2016 12:08:28 GMT
Personally I suspect it's the start of a move away from shoesmiths. With ever increasing legal bills, I frankly tend to believe the trustees are becoming concerned. Half a million quid in 2015, that's a fair old slice of the budget, and in all honesty, at what return? Very small gains on what is seemingly a small issue. Yet massive costs. I agree it's very little gained for a large outlay on a problem minority. But I think they will have to keep a close relationship with shoesmiths, well if they keep ending up in the high court anyway. These are all junior positions I think, hence the low salaries.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 7, 2016 14:37:27 GMT
I see they have appointed a new head of the legal team,Tom Deards.
Allan Richards 30 September at 08:47 At the C&RT board meeting on 23 September, Trustees resolved to terminate the appointment of Jackie Lewis as Company Secretary. In her place they have appointed Gill Eastwood who is currently Head of Audit. Lewis,who is General Counsel, currently heads up C&RT's ten strong legal team. According to the Trust she is leaving towards the end of the year. The Trust has already appointed a new head of legal, Tom Deards. Commenting on her departure NABO have said - CRT Legal Head to go. We are seeing reports that Jackie Lewis is to leave CRT before the end of the year. This is the person that presided over the disproportionate and un consulted changes to the boater licence last year and invented the requirement for those with a home mooring to continuously cruise and a few other choice things. We wish her well in her new employment. Yet again NABO will have a longer corporate memory than CRT.
hopefully it signals a change in direction,leaving behind these costly on all levels legal disputes would be better for everyone involved.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Oct 7, 2016 16:35:43 GMT
It would be better if they kept legal in house they would then build up the expertise to sort out the problems whilst they were small rather than develop into a huge horlicks like normal
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 7, 2016 16:45:12 GMT
Well it might be a sign that CRT will wind back a bit or Tom Deards maybe under instruction to go harder at it. Hope the former.
I am wondering if she was eased out or is going before it all blows up in her face, with court wins for Ravenscroft etc. Hope he does win.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 7, 2016 16:51:55 GMT
Personally I suspect it's the start of a move away from shoesmiths. I very much doubt that. The appointment of three lawyers prepared to work for such relatively low salaries wouldn't be likely to raise the quality and ability of the 10 strong 'team' of no-hopers they've already got. C&RT's latest and by far most spectacular bog-up to date, when they illegally seized the ex-lightship "Planet" in Liverpool and had it taken to Sharpness was conceived and executed by the local Waterway Manager and the local Enforcement Supervisor acting solely on advice and guidance from their own 'in house' lawyers without any involvement of Shoosmiths at all. The C&RT lawyers lack of confidence in their own abilities and the extent to which they rely on Shoosmiths was made very apparent last week on Tuesday 27 Sept. when around half an hour after the owner of "Planet" told C&RT that he had asked for my help and appointed me as his representative, C&RT's 'team' of goons handed the whole mess over to them to sort out. Here's the E-mail I got from C&RT that morning :~ Mr Dunkley.
We have instructed Shoosmiths to act on our behalf in this matter, and they will be responding to you directly on the matters raised in your letter.
Kind Regards Thami Nomvete Solicitor Legal 01908 351930 (office number) 07775 801245 (mobile number) Thami.Nomvete@canalrivertrust.org.uk
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 7, 2016 17:27:56 GMT
Tony from what little I know of the Planet saga the main thing at issue is the cost of the removal and the fact that CRT have moved it away from Liverpool and whether those costs can be deducted from any proceeds of sale. Now I would suggest that the possibility that CRT staff have much experience in that area is unlikely, hence referring it to Shoosmiths. Yes a lot of things that Shoosmiths are used for is to me wrong i.e. Section 8s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 17:33:54 GMT
Personally I suspect it's the start of a move away from shoesmiths. I very much doubt that. The appointment of three lawyers prepared to work for such relatively low salaries wouldn't be likely to raise the quality and ability of the 10 strong 'team' of no-hopers they've already got. C&RT's latest and by far most spectacular bog-up to date, when they illegally seized the ex-lightship "Planet" in Liverpool and had it taken to Sharpness was conceived and executed by the local Waterway Manager and the local Enforcement Supervisor acting solely on advice and guidance from their own 'in house' lawyers without any involvement of Shoosmiths at all. The C&RT lawyers lack of confidence in their own abilities and the extent to which they rely on Shoosmiths was made very apparent last week on Tuesday 27 Sept. when around half an hour after the owner of "Planet" told C&RT that he had asked for my help and appointed me as his representative, C&RT's 'team' of goons handed the whole mess over to them to sort out. Here's the E-mail I got from C&RT that morning :~ Mr Dunkley.
We have instructed Shoosmiths to act on our behalf in this matter, and they will be responding to you directly on the matters raised in your letter.
Kind Regards Thami Nomvete Solicitor Legal 01908 351930 (office number) 07775 801245 (mobile number) Thami.Nomvete@canalrivertrust.org.ukIsn't it all about specialisation? 3 lawyers who have specialist knowledge are better than 10 who may not. Maybe they are gearing up for the human right stuff....
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 7, 2016 18:24:14 GMT
Tony from what little I know of the Planet saga the main thing at issue is the cost of the removal and the fact that CRT have moved it away from Liverpool and whether those costs can be deducted from any proceeds of sale. Now I would suggest that the possibility that CRT staff have much experience in that area is unlikely, hence referring it to Shoosmiths. Yes a lot of things that Shoosmiths are used for is to me wrong i.e. Section 8s. There are several major issues re. what happened in Liverpool, and the removal to Sharpness cost isn't a primary one. Top of the list is that the forcible seizure and subsequent removal was not only completely illegal, but technically, under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, was in fact theft. The sad thing is that C&RT can plead a Defence likely to to succeed under S.2(1)(a) of the same Act by claiming that they believed they were acting lawfully under the terms of the Berthing Agreement with the ship's owner. Seizure was NOT under Section 8 of the 1983 BW Act, . . no Section 8 Notice was ever issued. It was carried out solely under the claimed authority and powers that C&RT endow upon themselves in the Berthing Agreement T&C's they have produced unsigned photocopies of SINCE the time of the seizure, and NOT in pursuance of an appropriate Writ or Court Order. Nor was there a HCEO or Certificated Enforcement Agent present at the time, . . . . and that became a criminal offence in 2007 when the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act went into the statute books.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 7, 2016 20:26:10 GMT
Well if you can get the police to agree that the removal of the boat was theft under the Theft Act I will be surprise as I think there is an important aspect missing, the intention to permanently deprive the owner. In this case pay his bill and the property will be returned, so no theft to my mind.
I did not think it was a section 8 seizure, totally not applicable.
As to the rest it is for a court to decide as I am sure that no other way will convince CRT.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 7, 2016 21:31:08 GMT
Well if you can get the police to agree that the removal of the boat was theft under the Theft Act I will be surprise as I think there is an important aspect missing, the intention to permanently deprive the owner. In this case pay his bill and the property will be returned, so no theft to my mind. I did not think it was a section 8 seizure, totally not applicable. As to the rest it is for a court to decide as I am sure that no other way will convince CRT. On the contrary, the 'intention to permanently deprive' has been indicated or demonstrated several times by C&RT in written communications. As for your point re. 'paying his bill', . . . you're overlooking the fact that the bill, now in excess of £40,000 and still climbing, is a contrivance brought about largely [currently in the region of 85% of it] by the outlay on the removal to Sharpness. C&RT don't need convincing about the illegality of what they've done because they already know full well. They're in big trouble, and from in the bottom of the almighty great hole they've dug themselves into this time, the only things left for them are bluster and bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 7, 2016 21:50:38 GMT
Well if you can get the police to agree that the removal of the boat was theft under the Theft Act I will be surprise as I think there is an important aspect missing, the intention to permanently deprive the owner. In this case pay his bill and the property will be returned, so no theft to my mind. I did not think it was a section 8 seizure, totally not applicable. As to the rest it is for a court to decide as I am sure that no other way will convince CRT. On the contrary, the 'intention to permanently deprive' has been indicated or demonstrated several times by C&RT in written communications. As for your point re. 'paying his bill', . . . you're overlooking the fact that the bill, now in excess of £40,000 and still climbing, is a contrivance brought about largely [currently in the region of 85% of it] by the outlay on the removal to Sharpness. C&RT don't need convincing about the illegality of what they've done because they already know full well. They're in big trouble, and from in the bottom of the almighty great hole they've dug themselves into this time, the only things left for them are bluster and bullshit. I am sorry Tony, by bill I mean and I think you were aware his mooring bill. I had already written that the cost of removal etc was rightly in my opinion in dispute. Not being privy to the CRT communications I have no way of judging what you say. My suggestion would be assuming the removal was illegal and the costs cannot be laid at the door of the owner. I would say that it is time to send a letter before action and get things underway as per the CPRs preaction rules. But of course do not go down that route unless the owner of Planet has the will, guts and finances to run the course of the action. I take it that you have already assembled the evidence, precedents and law references. The court is the only way that CRT will possibly back down without it I doubt there is a chance. After all they have nothing to lose while you keep shooting angry letters at them or their solicitors it is only in court that they need have any fear.
|
|