|
Post by Graham on Oct 10, 2016 10:51:56 GMT
Good luck with it Tony in a weeks time. Echoed, anything I can do to help or encourage?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 10, 2016 11:14:41 GMT
Good luck with it Tony in a weeks time. Thanks Kris and Graham, but it's really C&RT and Shoosmiths who need a slice of good luck. Their Claim was struck out in June after they made a balls up of a a straightforward adjournment, restored on Application in July, and now they trying to persuade me to sign a Consent Order agreeing to defer everything until at least the third week in May next year, after they know the outcome of Leigh Ravenscroft's claim against them for damages in respect of them depriving him of his boat in Newark in January 2015. Here's the letter they sent me last week : - Our Ref LVG/M-00253260 Date 5 October 2016 Dear Sir, CANAL & RIVER TRUST -V- ANTHONY DUNKLEY CRAFT βHALCYON DAZEβ INDEX NUMBER: 52721 CLAIM NUMBER: C10NG401 DIRECTIONS HEARING IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NOTTINGHAM ON 17 OCTOBER 2016 at 10.00AM We refer to the above matter which is listed for a Directions hearing at the County Court at Nottingham on 17 October 2016. In light of the contents of your Defence, of which we have still not received a signed copy, we propose that your case be stayed pending the outcome of the case of Leigh Ravenscroft -v- Canal & River Trust (Case HC-2015-001905) listed for trial in the High Court on 15 May 2017 and any subsequent appeal. As you are aware, in this case the Court will give judgment on the meaning of βmain navigable channelβ for the purposes of the British Waterways Act 1971, and determination of this will affect the outcome of your case. To this end we enclose a consent order for your consideration. In the event that you are in agreement with the terms therein please sign and return the order to us so that we can lodge it with the Court ahead of the hearing on 17 October 2016, saving costs of attendance at the hearing and Court Time. We suggest that you obtain independent legal advice on the content of this letter. Yours faithfully Shoosmiths LLP
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 10, 2016 11:48:51 GMT
You just can't believe anything they say, but you know that already after all the dirty tricks they have tried against yourself and others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 13:03:19 GMT
Today's pillocks on that thread. Mike the prick. Graham rabies. Ray telephone engineer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 13:07:06 GMT
Credit where it's due, nicky boy gets a brownie point for talking common sense (even though ray the telephone just couldn't grasp it).
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 10, 2016 13:30:47 GMT
Credit where it's due, nicky boy gets a brownie point for talking common sense (even though ray the telephone just couldn't grasp it). Steady on, you'll be sending me kisses next! xxx
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 10, 2016 14:50:06 GMT
I'll bet you a pound to a penny there has been outside pressure applied on cwdf, to take the threads down. Look how long the Leigh ravenscroft thread has been running, there hadn't been big arguments in it recently. I think Crt are getting very nervous about the dissemination of information about the way they operate. Is trying to get Nigel disallowed from being a mcckensies friend and their producing posts from that thread in the court. Which both strike me as dirty underhand tricks.
|
|
|
Post by rockdodger on Oct 10, 2016 14:51:12 GMT
Interesting that Phil made a post in the wee flounce thread putting Graham Davis in his place, that was moderated (content removed) by wrigglefingers 57 minutes later, however the thread had already been added to by 2 other moderators (32 minutes & 48 minutes after his post). Another example of inconsistancy within the CWDF moderator ranks?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 10, 2016 15:07:02 GMT
Interesting that Phil made a post in the wee flounce thread putting Graham Davis in his place, that was moderated (content removed) by wrigglefingers 57 minutes later, however the thread had already been added to by 2 other moderators (32 minutes & 48 minutes after his post). Another example of inconsistancy within the CWDF moderator ranks? Well yes, although to be fair the removed content should have been removed. Name calling adds nothing to an argument, in fact it brings the poster into disrepute and thus the removing of that content was doing him a favour!
|
|
|
Post by Trina on Oct 10, 2016 19:08:14 GMT
Have we all spotted the person over there who is soooo desperate to be a mod ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 19:12:41 GMT
Have we all spotted the person over there who is soooo desperate to be a mod ? "Why don't women like me" Mike the prick?
|
|
|
Post by Trina on Oct 10, 2016 19:37:30 GMT
I couldn't possibly say...π
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Oct 10, 2016 20:09:39 GMT
Good luck with it Tony in a weeks time. Thanks Kris and Graham, but it's really C&RT and Shoosmiths who need a slice of good luck. Their Claim was struck out in June after they made a balls up of a a straightforward adjournment, restored on Application in July, and now they trying to persuade me to sign a Consent Order agreeing to defer everything until at least the third week in May next year, after they know the outcome of Leigh Ravenscroft's claim against them for damages in respect of them depriving him of his boat in Newark in January 2015. Here's the letter they sent me last week : -Β Β Our Ref LVG/M-00253260 Date 5 October 2016 Dear Sir, CANAL & RIVER TRUST -V- ANTHONY DUNKLEY CRAFT βHALCYON DAZEβ INDEX NUMBER: 52721 CLAIM NUMBER: C10NG401 DIRECTIONS HEARING IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NOTTINGHAM ON 17 OCTOBER 2016 at 10.00AM We refer to the above matter which is listed for a Directions hearing at the County Court at Nottingham on 17 October 2016. In light of the contents of your Defence, of which we have still not received a signed copy, we propose that your case be stayed pending the outcome of the case of Leigh Ravenscroft -v- Canal & River Trust (Case HC-2015-001905) listed for trial in the High Court on 15 May 2017 and any subsequent appeal. As you are aware, in this case the Court will give judgment on the meaning of βmain navigable channelβ for the purposes of the British Waterways Act 1971, and determination of this will affect the outcome of your case. To this end we enclose a consent order for your consideration. In the event that you are in agreement with the terms therein please sign and return the order to us so that we can lodge it with the Court ahead of the hearing on 17 October 2016, saving costs of attendance at the hearing and Court Time. We suggest that you obtain independent legal advice on the content of this letter. Yours faithfully Shoosmiths Β LLP Is Leigh claiming damages for being unable to use his boat while in CRT's possetion ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 10, 2016 20:47:00 GMT
Thanks Kris and Graham, but it's really C&RT and Shoosmiths who need a slice of good luck. Their Claim was struck out in June after they made a balls up of a a straightforward adjournment, restored on Application in July, and now they trying to persuade me to sign a Consent Order agreeing to defer everything until at least the third week in May next year, after they know the outcome of Leigh Ravenscroft's claim against them for damages in respect of them depriving him of his boat in Newark in January 2015. Here's the letter they sent me last week : - Our Ref LVG/M-00253260 Date 5 October 2016 Dear Sir, CANAL & RIVER TRUST -V- ANTHONY DUNKLEY CRAFT βHALCYON DAZEβ INDEX NUMBER: 52721 CLAIM NUMBER: C10NG401 DIRECTIONS HEARING IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NOTTINGHAM ON 17 OCTOBER 2016 at 10.00AM We refer to the above matter which is listed for a Directions hearing at the County Court at Nottingham on 17 October 2016. In light of the contents of your Defence, of which we have still not received a signed copy, we propose that your case be stayed pending the outcome of the case of Leigh Ravenscroft -v- Canal & River Trust (Case HC-2015-001905) listed for trial in the High Court on 15 May 2017 and any subsequent appeal. As you are aware, in this case the Court will give judgment on the meaning of βmain navigable channelβ for the purposes of the British Waterways Act 1971, and determination of this will affect the outcome of your case. To this end we enclose a consent order for your consideration. In the event that you are in agreement with the terms therein please sign and return the order to us so that we can lodge it with the Court ahead of the hearing on 17 October 2016, saving costs of attendance at the hearing and Court Time. We suggest that you obtain independent legal advice on the content of this letter. Yours faithfully Shoosmiths LLP Is Leigh claiming damages for being unable to use his boat while in CRT's possetion ? I can't remember all the precise details, but Nigel Moore has published all the Court papers on 'Scribd'. Unlike C&RT, and the pathetic, fawning creeps at Analworld forum, the Courts have no objection whatsoever to complete openness, and details of both side's arguments, documentation etc. being made public.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 21:26:28 GMT
Is Leigh claiming damages for being unable to use his boat while in CRT's possetion ? I can't remember all the precise details, but Nigel Moore has published all the Court papers on 'Scribd'. Unlike C&RT, and the pathetic, fawning creeps at Analworld forum, the Courts have no objection whatsoever to complete openness, and details of both side's arguments, documentation etc. being made public. The place needs fumigation. It's full of nasty smells. Before all the cutbacks, the council would see to it, but as things are at the moment, I think we would have to employ private contractors.
|
|