Jump to content

Tony Dunkley

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Tony Dunkley

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 !
  4. No, . . no confusion on my part, but I'm not so sure about you !
  5. Another one of your way off target and incorrect assumptions, . . . I've absolutely no intention of buying a Licence at all.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. I see, . . . so you do want Alan Roberts to be represented by someone who will let C&RT walk all over him ?
  10. 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 ?
  11. 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.
  12. Sheeting up was confined to lorries, . . . narrowboats were clothed up.
  13. 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.
  14. 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 ?
  15. Speculation it may be, Geoff, but given BW/C&RT's track record of turfing out boats seen by them for some reason as being undesirable at some particular location, or obstacles to some self-aggrandizing scheme they're hatching, it's well founded and you're probably not very far wide of the mark. What is certain is that the reality, as opposed to the misleading tripe disseminated by C&RT just prior to the ship's removal, is that they were dead set on getting the ship out of their Liverpool Docks irrespective of the outcome of the dispute with the present owner, and regardless of the fact that a prospective purchaser in the process of negotiating with the existing owner, with insurance cover for the vessel already in place, and offering to clear all arrears of all monies owed, approached them with proposals to put the business onto a sound footing, BEFORE the ship was removed from Canning Dock and towed to Sharpness.
  16. It gets even more indefensible when you throw in the fact that after retaining possession throughout three days at sea, they put it back into waters under their ownership and control something in the region of 120 miles away, as the crow flies. Add in the prior written declarations of intent to sell the vessel, and all the elements of the legal definition of theft are undoubtedly in place. However, Section 2(1)(a) of the 1968 Theft Act does provide C&RT with a sound Defence in that they would inevitably claim that at the time they seized the vessel they believed their actions to be lawful, . . and that would be well nigh impossible to disprove.
  17. That is even more irrelevant than the cheque, and in asking the question you are illustrating one of the reasons why C&RT selected him as a suitable candidate for some special treatment, and that is, quite plainly, the levels of blind, unthinking prejudice likely to be directed at him, and that started with the two police constables who were led to believe they were attending the lawful removal from C&RT property of a trespassing vessel owned by a well known local pain in the arse,
  18. No amount of speculation and wittering on about this missing cheque will alter the fact that it's totally irrelevant and has no bearing whatsoever on the illegality of the seizure, the subsequent removal to Sharpness, and the prior stated intent to permanently deprive another of their property.
  19. Tendering payment for what you believe that you owe, even in the absence of an invoice, isn't something that many would see as an unreasonable or unwise thing to do, personally I would see as an indication of good faith. No, . . . and in an effort to avoid adding to your confusion, that's no, I'm not going to explain it for you, and NOT, . . no, I don't know.
  20. There hasn't been a Berthing Agreement [contract] in force since midnight on 31 December 2014, and there is nothing in the 2014 T&C's to the effect that the contract is extendable beyond the termination date.
  21. It appears that you've picked up the notion that clauses in a business contract can prevail over statute, on the grounds that the offeror wishes that to be so, from the last paragraph in the Shoosmiths e-mail I posted in #378. As for what you've assumed about my views on the fairness, or otherwise, of the C&RT Berthing Contract, can you explain just where you got that from, . . . other than acknowledging that "C&RT have laid themselves open to challenge under the Unfair Contracts Act 1977" in post #378, I haven't, as yet, expressed an opinion on the matter anywhere in this thread.
  22. I fail to see how accuracy in description equates with behaving like a 'bull in a china shop'. What purpose could possibly be served by mitigating the wrongs that brought about the need for an Application, in the very process of seeking remedy by way of an Order ? The process of obtaining a Court Order is not an exercise in diplomacy wrapped up in a quest for sympathy.
  23. I agree, but why 'open the field' and create an opening for introducing yet more ambiguity and obfuscation over and above that which C&RT's lawyers will be shoveling in ?
  24. Forcible entry and taking possession of premises by other than a duly authorized Enforcement Agent armed with the correct form of Writ sealed by the Court is a criminal act/offence, . . . . why describe it as anything other than precisely what it is ? In what C&RT did when "Planet" was forcibly seized on 19 September there is some overlap of civil and criminal law; put in the simplest way, in committing a criminal act, they inflicted a civil wrong.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.