Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 16:42:14 GMT
Well gosh, what more can there be to say before the triumphant court hearing? Mercy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 17:02:15 GMT
Did you mean Merci?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 17:06:01 GMT
Non.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 17:12:49 GMT
Just checking if there was a typo situation. I know it's unlikely with you but always keep an eye out anyway !
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 29, 2021 17:15:28 GMT
Well gosh, what more can there be to say before the triumphant court hearing? Mercy. Have I missed something important? Is there a court date set?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 17:18:25 GMT
Yes it's going to be 27th of February 1993 at 6.45pm.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 29, 2021 18:01:58 GMT
Bugger! Missed it. Who won?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 29, 2021 22:53:10 GMT
Blackwall Basin in London is a former dock. I don't know if it the same arrangement as Liverpool but CRT reserve the right to do quite a lot of things when it comes to boats on the moorings including even repairing your boat and billing you if they think it's in a dodgy state.. They also claim they can sell the boat to recover costs. www.watersidemooring.com/media/Blackwall%20Basin/Blackwall%20Basin%20-%20Site%20rules%2005.11.19.pdf(Downloads a small pdf) "We have the right to exercise a lien upon the Boat and/or any property on or off the Boat whilst in the Docks until such time as any money due to us including costs and charges incurred under the Conditions are paid in full. If any money due to us under the Conditions is not paid in full within 30 days of the sum having become payable we shall have the right to sell the Boat and/or any such property. Such sale will not take place until we have given you at least 21 daysβ notice of our intention to exercise such power of sale." &c. Of course Blackwall is right beside the glitzy Canary wharf business district so that could be part of the reason for the slightly heavy handed approach. [Conversely], the Torts(Interference with Goods)Act 1977, as referred to in the article accessible via rockdodger's link, and specifically the 'Uncollected goods' provisions of S.12, is unquestionably applicable to C&RT's unlawful seizure, and subsequent removal to Sharpness, of "Planet"- LV23 on 19 September 2016. Link to article ( rockdodger) from previous page : -- < www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=15d10e5e-f373-4b29-97b1-a95ee959bbb6 > It will, or at least it should, come as no surprise to anyone that the relevance of the Torts(Interference with Goods)Act 1977 to the unlawful seizure of "Planet"- LV23 as expressed by the specialist lawyer in the article linked to above is rather different from the stance adopted by C&RT's lawyers in the immediate aftermath of the unlawful seizure and removal of the ship from Liverpool's old South Docks on 19 September 2016. E-mail to C&RT's lawyers - sent 4 October 2016 : - Subject: Ex-Lightship "Planet" - Liverpool
FAO. Thami Nomvete, Lucy Barry.
Following on from last week's refusal to disclose the identity and authority of the personnel employed by the Trust to board, break into and seize "Planet", absent an appropriate Court Order or Writ on Monday 19 September 2016, Mr Roberts is both disturbed and disappointed by the Trust's reluctance to agree to even a temporary hold on making arrangements to sell the vessel, or to react in a positive and constructive manner to his offer of talks and negotiations.
As a gesture of good faith, and despite his understandable concerns with regard to the Trust's immediate intentions, Mr Roberts has agreed to wait for a further short period of time for the undertaking he has asked for, before embarking on the course of action towards which the Trust's hitherto precipitative actions and now somewhat secretive intransigence are driving him.
This letter is to be regarded as the notice referred to in 7(1) in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, which being statute, prevails over Clause 10.1.2 in the terms and conditions purported to be part of and contained within the Berthing Agreement dated 15 April 2014 and signed by Mr Roberts on a date not specified.
Signed A.K.Dunkley (Owners Representative)the arrogant reply :- 4 October 2016
Dear Mr Dunkley
Section 7(1) of Schedule 1 Part II of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 (βthe Actβ) prevents a bailee either serving a notice under section 12(3) of the Act or selling the goods under this section of the Act. As the Trust is not relying on this Act then this section does not apply to the current situation. Your suggestion that the Act being statute prevails over the Agreement is incorrect.
Yours sincerely Lucy Barry Associate Solicitor-Advocate SHOOSMITHS LLP
my response :- 4 October 2016
Subject: Ex-Lightship "Planet" - Liverpool
FAO, Lucy Barry , Thami Nomvete.
Your comments with regard to the Trust not relying on the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 are noted, as is your assertion that statute can be held to be subordinate to such as terms and conditions in a Berthing Agreement.
I would be most grateful if you were to direct me to the authorities upon which the Trust intends to rely in support of this.
Signed A.K.Dunkley (Owners Representative)
the even more arrogant reply :- 4 October 2016
Dear Mr Dunkley
My email clearly sets out the position as to why the Act does not apply.
If neither you nor Mr Roberts understand the position then I suggest that Mr Roberts seeks independent legal advice from a qualified legal professional.
Yours sincerely Lucy Barry Associate Solicitor-Advocate SHOOSMITHS LLP
my response :- 5 October 2016
Subject: Ex-Lightship "Planet" - Liverpool
FAO. Lucy Barry, Thami Nomvete.
Mr Roberts and I understand the 'position' perfectly well, but for obvious reasons we see it from a rather different perspective.
If, as you believe, it is possible and lawful for the parties to an Agreement to contract out of statute then much time and pointless argument would be avoided if you demonstrated this by directing us to the relevant authorities.
Leaving aside argument as to the legality, or otherwise, of forcibly taking possession of another's property with the intention of selling it, by personnel other than HCEO's or Certificated Enforcement Agents, absent an appropriate Writ or Court Order and in violation of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, there is no question or argument that in neither citing nor relying on this Act in the 'Termination' section of it's Berthing Agreement, Canal and River Trust stand alone amongst Marina operators and mooring providers.
Signed A.K.Dunkley (Owner's Representative)
and the final piece of arrogance :- 6 October 2016
Dear Mr Dunkley
I refer you back to my two previous emails, in particular the email of 4 October 2016 at 3.16pm which clearly sets out the legal position.
In the event that you continue to make circular arguments on this point, then no further response will be forthcoming as it will only seek to increase legal costs which may ultimately end up being borne by Mr Roberts.
If Mr Roberts disagrees with the legal position stated then, as below, I suggest that Mr Roberts seeks independent legal advice from a qualified legal professional.
Yours sincerely Lucy Barry Associate Solicitor-Advocate SHOOSMITHS LLP________________________________________________________________ I wonder if the references to the Torts(Interference with Goods)Act 1977 by the specialist lawyer in the article available via rockdodger's link was the sort of "independent legal advice from a qualified legal professional" that she had in mind ? Probably not, . . but in any event, I'd love to hear an explanation from her as to why, . . if C&RT could opt out of the statutory constraints imposed on it under the 1977 Torts Act as easily and simply as she claims, . . was it necessary to contemptuously mislead the Chester Court hearing the Injunction application by submitting false written evidence about seizing "Planet"- LV23 pursuant to a previously issued and wholly mythical "High Court Warrant" only a few weeks after these e-mails were written ?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Jul 30, 2021 1:24:00 GMT
Putting aside all the bluster, I have noticed in all the emails I've seen that she really avoids answering the questions.
I presume she is only writing to the judge, she wants to paint a really bad picture of you to be shown to the court.
I hope they see through it, that and I'm sure she is wrong too. Even I know you can't contract out of statute.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2021 9:13:31 GMT
[Conversely], the Torts(Interference with Goods)Act 1977, as referred to in the article accessible via rockdodger's link, and specifically the 'Uncollected goods' provisions of S.12, is unquestionably applicable to C&RT's unlawful seizure, and subsequent removal to Sharpness, of "Planet"- LV23 on 19 September 2016. Link to article ( rockdodger) from previous page : -- < www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=15d10e5e-f373-4b29-97b1-a95ee959bbb6 > As a gesture of good faith, and despite his understandable concerns with regard to the Trust's immediate intentions, Mr Roberts has agreed to wait for a further short period of time for the undertaking he has asked for, before embarking on the course of action towards which the Trust's hitherto precipitative actions and now somewhat secretive intransigence are driving him.
Are we to understand that the short pause in proceedings announced in 2016 has now concluded?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2021 9:40:54 GMT
I thought a very good point was made about the costs associated with the rather long winded and repetitive emails from TD.
I wonder if solicitors charge more for reading unusually long sentences. A "per comma fee" perhaps.
Someone is going to be doing well out of this IF it ever gets to any legal challenge and I don't think it's going to be a boat person.
On the other hand it is an obvious scare tactic to mention the costs as a way to try to put off the other side.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 4, 2021 14:15:01 GMT
(via e-mail) Ex-Liverpool Bar Lightvessel - LV23 - "Planet"
Fao S. Beacham 26 July 2021
Mr Beacham,
Transcripts of a number of recent telephone conversations in which you and a Mr Paul Beacham fraudulently portrayed yourselves as the owners and/or legitimate sellers of LV23-"Planet" have been forwarded to Alan Roberts by a prospective buyer of the ship to whom you were unable, or unwilling, to provide a copy of a Bill of Sale, or any other documentary proof of either good title to the ship or lawful authority to sell as agent or broker.
We are also aware that you were unable, or unwilling, to provide a copy of a Bill of Sale or any other documentary proof of either good title to the ship, or lawful authority to sell as agent or broker, after being contacted by National Historic Ships UK pursuant to a similar request on behalf of another prospective buyer back in March of this year.
It is now some 4 years since you promised, at a meeting in your office at Sharpness, to forward a copy of the 2017 Bill of Sale for LV23-"Planet" that you claim to have from the Canal & River Trust [C&RT] to the ship's undisputed owner, Mr Alan Roberts.
The above reference to Mr Roberts as the ship's 'undisputed' owner will no doubt come as an unwelcome surprise as you have probably never been made aware that at no time prior to the public announcement of the supposed 'sale' of the ship to you did the C&RT ever formally claim ownership of or good title to LV23-"Planet".
All that the C&RT have ever claimed was a 'contractual' right to sell Mr Roberts' ship derived from a Termination Clause in the Liverpool South Docks Berthing Agreement between Mr Roberts and the C&RT. The contractual right to sell the ship initially gained tacit endorsement under a High Court Judgment lifting the Injunction that was preventing the C&RT from selling the ship on 19 December 2016.
That Judgment has since been called into question, and along with it the tacit endorsement of the specious claim to a contractual right to sell Mr Roberts' ship, by way of revelations that the C&RT's lawyers obtained the Judgment lifting the Injunction on the back of known to be false written evidence submitted to the Court shortly before the hearing that indicated to the Court that the seizure of the ship in Liverpool on 19 September 2016 and the subsequent removal and tow to Sharpness had been lawfully executed pursuant to a High Court Warrant. Having been informed of the above in writing now leaves you knowingly in possession of a ship that the seller of the ship in 2017, the C&RT, knew it had no lawful right, contractual or otherwise, to sell to you or any other party.
Mr Roberts has never received the promised copy of the BoS, or any other communication from you since meeting with you in your office back in 2017, it is therefore plainly evident that no such Bill of Sale exists, or has ever existed, and that the C&RT originated story of the supposed sale of the ship to yourselves was simply a fabrication to which you were a willing party.
With multiple video and audio recordings, telephone call transcripts, and information from National Historic Ships UK, Mr Roberts has ample evidence gathered from early 2017 to the present of your personal involvement in this matter from the time the ship was left in your possession on 24 September 2016, after arriving in Sharpness.
You have limited options, and very little time remaining during which you may possibly be able to dissociate yourself from this conspiracy to deprive Alan Roberts of his ship and his livelihood. You would be well advised to make good use of the time, and the choice of options.
In the interests of openness and accountability this letter will be published on the internet.
Signed,
A.K.Dunkley (Shipowner's Representative)The above e-mailed letter was re-transmitted 2 days later - 28 July - and there's been no response from Beacham. The follow-up, reproduced below, was sent today : -- Ex-Liverpool Bar Lightvessel - LV23 -"Planet"
4 August 2021 Fao. S. Beacham
Mr Beacham,
A week ago today you were advised on behalf of Mr Alan Roberts, the undisputed owner of the ex-Liverpool Bar Lightvessel "Planet", also known under its former Trinity House designation as LV23, and currently laying on a berth rented to you in Sharpness Dock, Gloucester, that he had been made aware that you have been offering his ship for sale and presenting yourself to prospective buyers as the lawfully authorized vendor.
You were also advised that Mr Roberts now has in his possession records of telephone conversations with prospective buyers of his ship in which you indicated, amongst other incriminating admissions, not that you owned "Planet", but that you were merely exercising an 'entitlement' to sell the ship on behalf of of an unnamed third party.
This is a very different story from that which you told Mr Roberts on his last visit to Sharpness, and the story that was related on a BBC Radio Merseyside interview broadcast shortly afterwards, when on both occasions you were claiming to own "Planet"- LV23, having recently bought it from the Canal & River Trust.
The truth behind either one or both of these fabrications is of no immediate consequence and has no immediate bearing on your present situation. There is now sufficient evidence in the hands of the ship's owner to support a criminal charge against you personally of handling stolen goods.
The only viable defence available to you against such a charge is for you to produce a verifiable copy of the Bill of Sale for the ship that you were claiming to have in your possession back in May 2017, together with a sworn statement (affidavit) to the effect that you bought and paid for the ship, from the (named) seller, in good faith and believing the then seller to be the true lawful owner.
You have until close of business on Friday 6 August 2021 to contact the ship's owner and advise him of your intentions.
Signed, A.K.Dunkley (Shipowner's Representative)____________________________________________________________ NB: No responses from the TBGS required or necessary. The above e-mail wasn't posted for their benefit, . . or for the purpose of attracting their mindless attention. _____________________________________________________________
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Aug 4, 2021 15:28:22 GMT
(via e-mail) Ex-Liverpool Bar Lightvessel - LV23 - "Planet"
Fao S. Beacham 26 July 2021
Mr Beacham,
Transcripts of a number of recent telephone conversations in which you and a Mr Paul Beacham fraudulently portrayed yourselves as the owners and/or legitimate sellers of LV23-"Planet" have been forwarded to Alan Roberts by a prospective buyer of the ship to whom you were unable, or unwilling, to provide a copy of a Bill of Sale, or any other documentary proof of either good title to the ship or lawful authority to sell as agent or broker.
We are also aware that you were unable, or unwilling, to provide a copy of a Bill of Sale or any other documentary proof of either good title to the ship, or lawful authority to sell as agent or broker, after being contacted by National Historic Ships UK pursuant to a similar request on behalf of another prospective buyer back in March of this year.
It is now some 4 years since you promised, at a meeting in your office at Sharpness, to forward a copy of the 2017 Bill of Sale for LV23-"Planet" that you claim to have from the Canal & River Trust [C&RT] to the ship's undisputed owner, Mr Alan Roberts.
The above reference to Mr Roberts as the ship's 'undisputed' owner will no doubt come as an unwelcome surprise as you have probably never been made aware that at no time prior to the public announcement of the supposed 'sale' of the ship to you did the C&RT ever formally claim ownership of or good title to LV23-"Planet".
All that the C&RT have ever claimed was a 'contractual' right to sell Mr Roberts' ship derived from a Termination Clause in the Liverpool South Docks Berthing Agreement between Mr Roberts and the C&RT. The contractual right to sell the ship initially gained tacit endorsement under a High Court Judgment lifting the Injunction that was preventing the C&RT from selling the ship on 19 December 2016.
That Judgment has since been called into question, and along with it the tacit endorsement of the specious claim to a contractual right to sell Mr Roberts' ship, by way of revelations that the C&RT's lawyers obtained the Judgment lifting the Injunction on the back of known to be false written evidence submitted to the Court shortly before the hearing that indicated to the Court that the seizure of the ship in Liverpool on 19 September 2016 and the subsequent removal and tow to Sharpness had been lawfully executed pursuant to a High Court Warrant. Having been informed of the above in writing now leaves you knowingly in possession of a ship that the seller of the ship in 2017, the C&RT, knew it had no lawful right, contractual or otherwise, to sell to you or any other party.
Mr Roberts has never received the promised copy of the BoS, or any other communication from you since meeting with you in your office back in 2017, it is therefore plainly evident that no such Bill of Sale exists, or has ever existed, and that the C&RT originated story of the supposed sale of the ship to yourselves was simply a fabrication to which you were a willing party.
With multiple video and audio recordings, telephone call transcripts, and information from National Historic Ships UK, Mr Roberts has ample evidence gathered from early 2017 to the present of your personal involvement in this matter from the time the ship was left in your possession on 24 September 2016, after arriving in Sharpness.
You have limited options, and very little time remaining during which you may possibly be able to dissociate yourself from this conspiracy to deprive Alan Roberts of his ship and his livelihood. You would be well advised to make good use of the time, and the choice of options.
In the interests of openness and accountability this letter will be published on the internet.
Signed,
A.K.Dunkley (Shipowner's Representative) You have until close of business on Friday 6 August 2021 to contact the ship's owner and advise him of your intentions.
My prediction is that this ultimatum will be as fruitful as the one where you gave CRT until 16:00 on the 4th November 2020 to return Halcyon Daze to its mooring.
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Aug 4, 2021 15:38:09 GMT
Tony, I seem to remember long ago Mr Beacham saying that he would not enter into any further communication with you. It is very likely that both of these emails were automatically deleted and dropped into the deepest pit he could set up, without him seeing them. I am sure it is no surprise to you that no reply has been received.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2021 18:54:26 GMT
I think "Shouting into the Void" sums up what TD is doing, makes him feel better but is of no practical use.
|
|