Tony Dunkley

Shoosmiths are past masters in ensuring that as few Court papers as possible ever reach the intended recipient, so there is every likelihood that they've developed a similar method of ''inadvertently'' ensuring that as many e-mails as possible never arrive either.

And don't they just get plenty of practice in that particular skill, . . . a considerable proportion of the subjects of C&RT's excesses have marked difficulties in both understanding the process they being put through and/or communicating about it. The latest one, in Liverpool, also falls into this category.

Apart from them not having a hope in Hell of getting me to agree to a Consent Order to stay the proceedings, I'm as yet undecided on the course of action which is most likely to bring the maximum benefit to others who may possibly be future Section 8 targets. As far as I'm aware the Courts won't even start thinking about labeling a litigant as vexatious until they've chalked up their third vexatious Claim, so getting this on the record as one such would at least be a start, and is high on the list of considerations. Blessed be the peacemakers !

No, . . no confusion on my part, but I'm not so sure about you !

Which tack is that ?

Another one of your way off target and incorrect assumptions, . . . I've absolutely no intention of buying a Licence at all.

To add to C&RT and Shoosmiths' growing misery after the hi-jacking of the "Planet" Lightship in Liverpool, they had to write to me today asking for my co-operation in signing a Consent Order to stay proceedings in their latest Section 8 attempt on me. They may be in for yet more disappointment ! _________________________________ Our Ref LVG/M-00253260 Date 5 October 2016 Dear Sir, CANAL & RIVER TRUST -V- ANTHONY DUNKLEY CRAFT “HALCYON DAZE” 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 ‘main navigable channel’ 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

I'm fairly sure that it's been noted earlier in this thread, but for the sake of a clear understanding of just how events in Liverpool concerning "Planet" began and evolved into the epoch-making bog-up that it's now become, I'll mention it again. Unlike the routine Section 8 boat acquisitions that are handled entirely by C&RT's 'Enforcement Team' and Shoosmiths, for some reason best known to themselves the seizure and removal of "Planet" from Liverpool was handled entirely by C&RT's North West Waterways Manager and their Liverpool Harbour Master acting on the advice of the local Enforcement Supervisor, and C&RT's own 'Legal Team' who normally seem to do little else other than polish the chair seats in the Milton Keynes office. Shoosmiths involvement only began early on the morning of Tuesday 27 September, with the ship already berthed in Sharpness Dock.

There can be no doubt that any Court will uphold this position, and nor is this something brought about by or since this 1999 House of Lords Judgment. The exact words used escape me now, it was around some 30 years ago, but I was assured most emphatically by a County Court Judge to the effect that no individual or organisation can impose conditions or terms which ultimately will prevail over statute.

I see, . . . so you do want Alan Roberts to be represented by someone who will let C&RT walk all over him ?

What exactly is it that you mean by "proper" legal advice and assistance, . . . something along the lines of what Andy Wingfield had in Nottingham County Court last year from a 'legal team' who were about as much use as Lord Lucan's passport ?

There should be a drain cock, or a plug, in the tapped hole in the side of the water pump body, . . . opening that drains everything. No need to fill it up with water next time it's run, . . . just turn the water back on at the mudbox cock and start her up.

Sheeting up was confined to lorries, . . . narrowboats were clothed up.

Unlikely, . . . not when almost all inland and coastal mooring providers and Marinas include and rely on the 1977 Torts Act in the termination section of their T&C's, the notable exceptions being C&RT in the old Liverpool Docks, and BWML, who use a slightly watered down version of basically the same load of ''we want it both ways'' twaddle in their berthing/mooring contracts.

No, Alan Roberts wasn't -" negotiating to sell the thing all the time!"- he had simply rejected an initial offer made by someone who approached him after becoming aware of the situation and wanting to ensure that the ship stayed in Liverpool as a viable and well run business. Why do you feel compelled to put such a bad slant on everything except C&RT's conduct and behaviour ?