Tony Dunkley
-
Posts
3,298 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Tony Dunkley
-
-
Well they did not get their original version into the Order, so that was something - but yes, it is problematic that all contact is now through Leigh alone, because he cannot really read well enough to know what is said, and does not see/react to emails in good time. He did not send on the latest emails [with deadlines] from Shoosmiths until the day after the deadline.
Come to that, from Tony's posting of the latest letter to him, it seems that the court have set a date for a hearing in Leigh's case, and I still have not heard from about that, even though he was on the phone yesterday and this afternoon!
Shoosmiths will be playing heavily on this disability.
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.
-
It is more than a little ridiculous. There is nothing new that has arisen of which they were not fully aware from before they even served the s.8 Notice on you.
This makes it so obvious that they prematurely served you with the s.8, and with filing suit in the County Court, hoping that their efforts to have Leigh’s case thrown out would succeed, and that only now that a date has been set, have they finally given up such hope.
Rather then agreeing to a Consent Order for adjournment, might it not be possible to move instead for a Strike-Out for abuse of process or something similar? They were fully aware from your earlier case that the grounds you would rely on were the same as R v CaRT after all.
That is not a positive recommendation, just noting a potential possibility.
edit to add: might there not even be a case for having the Claim against you declared vexatious, under the circumstances?
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.
I rather think Tony is highlighting the fact that he does not need a “licence” for the waterways he uses; if navigating those he needs only a pleasure boat certificate.
[sorry if that was a spoiler, Tony]
Blessed be the peacemakers !
-
Sorry was the nautical term confusing?
No, . . no confusion on my part, but I'm not so sure about you !
-
A wonderful outlook. What if we all took that tack?
Which tack is that ?
-
Why bother when he fully intends to buy a licence and halt proceedings anyway?
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
-
1
-
-
The fact that CaRT are, regardless, still denying the application of the relevant statute because of the agreement, is a very clear signal that they are fully aware of the enormity of what they have done and are doing.
Shoosmiths are NOT so advising CaRT. They advise that the terms of the agreement remove the situation from any applicability of the Torts Act. In short, that Mr Roberts contracted out of the statute that would otherwise have protected him from summary disposal of his boat.
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.
-
To my mind, the House of Lords emphatic pronouncement that one cannot contract out of a statute, would be compellingly persuasive on any lesser court.
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.
-
Recognised qualification. Probably also a very good idea to ensure they have a practising certificate and they're members of the regulating body, which is the Solicitor's Regulation Authority.
I see, . . . so you do want Alan Roberts to be represented by someone who will let C&RT walk all over him ?
-
So given that is the case, has the owner of Planet been properly legally advised, or is he seeking proper legal assistance?
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 ?
-
2
-
-
I have to start thinking about my winter draining and filling of the engine.
Its raw water so no anti freeze can be added.
Where is the best place to drain everything? By this i mean the block and water pump.
didnt know if waterpump drained itself if the mud box is disconnected for draining and if the waterpump is self priming once water is back in the mud box?
Where is the best place / places on the block to drain it.
And where or what is the best way to fill it up again.
This will need to be done atleast once a week so dont really wanna have to keep taking a blank out or bolt in and out didnt know if there is a drain tap on the block or if you can add one have lots of brass small engine taps.
Again witg filling would preferred not to have to keep taking the water pipe on and off to fill it.
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.
-
Think it was blossom that did a blog on sheeting up if you do a google for might find it
Sheeting up was confined to lorries, . . . narrowboats were clothed up.
-
I am wondering if the Tort Act is the wrong end of the stick. ......... ........... .......... .......
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.
-
So now the owner (whoever it is) who made such a dramatic effort to save his ship, saying he had lost everything he cared about, was actually negotiating to sell the thing all the time! Well, who ever would believe it? Amazing. Thank god reliable information is available at last, that's all I can say. I'm sure the new owner already had a mooring fixed up for the boat, same as anyone with any sense would when they buy one. Of course, he wouldn't be liable for debts incurred by the previous owner, so that that offer would have to be taken in good faith, which is something very much lacking by now I should think.
But you can't really blame CRT for being dead set on getting the thing out of their dock can you? They'd had two years,more or less, of trying to get their fees or the relevant info from the owner and very little, if any, evidence of it ever being a viable business.
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 ?
-
See Nigel's post above.
As there was an apparent 'rush to action' could it be there was an imposed 'deadline'.
Could it be that other businesses had said 'get that boat out of here' and threatened to speak to the press about what, they believed, was a 'problem' needing investigating - or a 'story'.
Lots of press about due to Labour Party Conference and one of the affected businesses - the Revolution Bar - hosting a Radio 5 programme.
The threat of 'bad press' imposing the said 'deadline'.
Pure speculation on my part.
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.
-
Which obviously makes things worse for CRT. While the vessel is in their waters, it's entirely reasonable for them to take action over an 'illegally' moored vessel. But to retain possession of a vessel whilst it's in waters where they have no jurisdiction? How can that be defended?
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.
-
If he is being less than truthful towards them, how truthful has he been towards CRT?
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,
-
If this 'ghost' cheque was ever sent
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.
-
And yet Mr Roberts felt obliged to send them a cheque in 2015. Why would he do that if he believed no berthing agreement existed?
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.
Can you please state the legal basis for that assertion, taking into account the comments made by Mike earlier?
My understanding is that by leaving his property in that position means that the Contract is continued by default.
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.
-
......... ........... ............. .......... Now my gut, which could easily be wrong is saying, that unless the 2014 contract has words that extend it validity through the two years of no contract etc the use of the removal as per the contract could be invalid because the owner did not sign a contract.
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.
-
Armed with that contractual agreement from the owner as to what they may do, anything that you can throw in regarding interference with goods etc just doesn't come into play. ................. ................ ...................
However, what you appear to have done here is decided that as YOU think the contract is unfair, it IS unfair, and that as such you can interpret all actions taken on the basis that the contract is void.
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.
-
Because you don't close your own route down. My Nanna would say don't cut your nose of to spite your face. I know they upset you but remember they won't be bullied, they have more resources and money than you, more time, so you have to plough a moderate path and that way the Court if and when you get there will be more sympathetic. Be a bull in a china shop and the court will not be happy.
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.
-
OK Tony have it your own way but changing the term opens the field.
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 ?
-
Tony,
May I strongly suggest that you do not use the term "criminal act" but change it to "unlawful act". A lawyers mind looks at what you have written and debates is anything that we have done a "criminal act" under the meaning of any part of the criminal law, answer no and from that point tells you to go away. However I would suggest the use of the term "unlawful act" covers not only the criminal law but also Civil Law, like the Torts Act etc, now the lawyer has to ask the question is anything we have done conceivably a breach close to being a breach of any law and hence do I really need to engage with this person. Could get you and better answer.
Also it is less emotive
ETA I might even repeat your email opening saying I believe I incorrectly used the term "criminal act" rather than the term "unlawful act"
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.
Boater Sues C&RT for Section 8
in General Boating
Posted
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.