Moore v British Waterways Board [2012] EWHC 182

[carlt]

And so the charade of a case that is about little more than your belief that you have found a clever way of avoiding paying your way continues. The money that the rest of us DO pay will be expended on this, instead of maintaining the waterways.

 

I know that there are some who see you as some kind of hero for standing up against BW, but frankly somebody who avoids paying towards the upkeep of the waterways he uses, and then expects BW/CRT to pay for his many days in court to try and argue ever more obscure reasons why he can avoid paying anything is no hero.

It is posts like this that attempts to elevate normal people, exercising their right to explore the validity of a demand for payment through legal channels, into the status of "hero".

 

Nobody has mentioned the word "hero" before you, Dave, and you are merely using it to disparage Mr Moore, rather than discussing the interesting legal issue brought before us.

 

Perhaps it is a bit beyond your intellectual capacity and you are trying to drag the argument down to your level?

 

Any sensible person engaged in a legal process would attempt to prove that the other party is liable for the costs incurred and you thinking that this means you have to pay for it is irrelevant.

 

If Mr Moore was engaged in a legal battle with M&S then any legal costs incurred would just go onto your underwear bill, regardless of whether you feel it is just or not.

 

What's the difference?

[Tuscan]

It is posts like this that attempts to elevate normal people, exercising their right to explore the validity of a demand for payment through legal channels, into the status of "hero".

 

Nobody has mentioned the word "hero" before you, Dave, and you are merely using it to disparage Mr Moore, rather than discussing the interesting legal issue brought before us.

 

Perhaps it is a bit beyond your intellectual capacity and you are trying to drag the argument down to your level?

 

Any sensible person engaged in a legal process would attempt to prove that the other party is liable for the costs incurred and you thinking that this means you have to pay for it is irrelevant.

 

If Mr Moore was engaged in a legal battle with M&S then any legal costs incurred would just go onto your underwear bill, regardless of whether you feel it is just or not.

 

What's the difference?

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with you , however perhaps there is a case for ensuring a percentage of costs are paid into cost so that should the case be lost again , CRT recover some of their costs.

[jenlyn]

And so the charade of a case that is about little more than your belief that you have found a clever way of avoiding paying your way continues. The money that the rest of us DO pay will be expended on this, instead of maintaining the waterways.

 

I know that there are some who see you as some kind of hero for standing up against BW, but frankly somebody who avoids paying towards the upkeep of the waterways he uses, and then expects BW/CRT to pay for his many days in court to try and argue ever more obscure reasons why he can avoid paying anything is no hero.

I prefer to see it as two party's with their own interpretations of the rules looking for clarification of them through the courts. Thus giving us all, the benefit of knowing where we stand.

As for your hero remark, I can only assume that you are worried that Mr Moore may win and knock your soap box from beneath your feet. It's an interesting case and far more important than your silly wittisms, so please don't belittle it.

[RLWP]

I prefer to see it as two party's with their own interpretations of the rules looking for clarification of them through the courts. Thus giving us all, the benefit of knowing where we stand.

 

<snip>

 

Which is, of course, how the law works in this country

 

Richard

[mayalld]

If Mr Moore was engaged in a legal battle with M&S then any legal costs incurred would just go onto your underwear bill, regardless of whether you feel it is just or not.

 

I don't buy my underwear at M&S

[carlt]

I don't buy my underwear at M&S

Primark then...

[mayalld]

I prefer to see it as two party's with their own interpretations of the rules looking for clarification of them through the courts. Thus giving us all, the benefit of knowing where we stand.

As for your hero remark, I can only assume that you are worried that Mr Moore may win and knock your soap box from beneath your feet. It's an interesting case and far more important than your silly wittisms, so please don't belittle it.

 

I am all for interesting discussions of what the law is, indeed such discussions are something that I indulge in myself.

 

I find it rather interesting in itself that for some people daring to look to the finer meaning of the law to find ways of STOPPING freeloaders and doing so without incurring huge legal costs is a bad thing, whilst doing exactly the same thing to find ways of enabling freeloader at great expense is a good thing. Can we spot the double standards?

 

This case is a case that is only going ahead because Mr Moore knows that come what may he isn't going to pay for anything, because he will simply say "haven't got any money". If he actually had any money that he might be at risk of having to pay out on these costs that are racking up, he wouldn't be so quick to demand his day in court.

[jenlyn]

I am all for interesting discussions of what the law is, indeed such discussions are something that I indulge in myself.

 

I find it rather interesting in itself that for some people daring to look to the finer meaning of the law to find ways of STOPPING freeloaders and doing so without incurring huge legal costs is a bad thing, whilst doing exactly the same thing to find ways of enabling freeloader at great expense is a good thing. Can we spot the double standards?

 

This case is a case that is only going ahead because Mr Moore knows that come what may he isn't going to pay for anything, because he will simply say "haven't got any money". If he actually had any money that he might be at risk of having to pay out on these costs that are racking up, he wouldn't be so quick to demand his day in court.

And thankfully, our system works like this, meaning the bigger fish with it's bigger lawyers cannot dictate under the threat of "we can afford it, can you"?

[KevMc]

And thankfully, our system works like this, meaning the bigger fish with it's bigger lawyers cannot dictate under the threat of "we can afford it, can you"?

but on the other hand .... someone with nothing to lose can cause immense expense to an organisation just because they can. (not that I am necessarily saying that is the case here)

[mayalld]

And thankfully, our system works like this, meaning the bigger fish with it's bigger lawyers cannot dictate under the threat of "we can afford it, can you"?

 

I am pleased that you feel it to be a good state of affairs.

 

The very rich can afford to take a calculated risk as to whether they will win, and whether the amount risked is worth the chance of winning.

The very poor can take the attitude that they will fight anything all the way, because they don't have to pay.

Everybody else can't seek redress, because they risk being reduced to poverty.

[carlt]

The very poor can take the attitude that they will fight anything all the way, because they don't have to pay.

I'm not sure where you get this notion from, especially since the overhauling of the Legal Aid rules.

 

They may be given an opportunity to repay costs at a rate proportionate to their lack of income but they still have to pay.

[NigelMoore]

. . . somebody who avoids paying towards the upkeep of the waterways he uses . .

 

I don’t know quite how this view of my position arose, nor how anyone could continue to maintain it in the face of the information I have provided previously.

 

The court has already found that BW were wrong to issue the Section 8 notices for the reasons they gave, i.e. that we were unlicensed, and has confirmed my position that no licence is needed to use this section of waterway. It has also taken notice of the fact that as soon as we were able to do so following arrival on the ‘mainstream’ of this section, we have been paying for boat licences regardless, without prejudice to that position.

 

I am NOT avoiding paying; how many other boaters would pay voluntarily, as we do, in circumstances where they did not have to? The criticism is bizarre, aside from its inaccuracy. Besides which, that particular aspect of the case – whether or not we needed to pay for a boat licence - is done and dusted and BW did not seek to appeal it.

 

A question that should be asked, and has not been asked by anyone, is why did BW continue to try enforcing the notices on the boats once they were licensed? And why have they considered that it was worth spending the money, simply to get rid of me? Having rejected my explanation of improper purpose, the judge could find no alternative answer to that, although he concluded that it was unnecessary to delve into their motives. It remains, however, a pertinent question for any of BW’s public.

 

The case continues because the judge agreed with BW’s other proposition that there is no riparian right to moor, and because he unilaterally decided that Section 8 was a sanction that could be applied in the absence of any breach of regulation, i.e. it could be applied in circumstances where a positive right to moor could not be established.

 

That latter point is a new twist that neither side expected, and part of my argument is that it is an unconstitutional interpretation. It is the only NEW aspect to the case where “ever more obscure reasons” come into play – and it has nothing to do with avoiding paying our way; it has to do with a defence against being evicted from waterways wherein we have every right to be, whether that right exists by reason of common law or by reason of holding a current boat licence.

 

Perhaps I should be grateful that the Lord Justice of Appeal who granted permission lacked the legal insight that would have enabled him to dismiss my case in the terms you do.

 

The notes appended to the Permission Order include:

 

“(1) Rule 52.3(6) provides that permission to appeal may only be given where – a) the Court considers that the appeal would have a real prospect of success; or there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.”

[Ronniesonic]

Nigel, with the greatest respect, I thought this thread would go away as it get's my goat.

 

All this legal mumbo jumbo & poncing around the subject is crazy.

 

Basically, you & others like you 'blatantly' take the piss too much..... end of. That is the crux of it, regardless of whether BW did not follow 'procedures' correctly.

 

You may be very intelligent but that does not make you 'smart'.

 

Please note the words 'blatantly' & 'too much'. Rocket science it ain't!

[Rich]

Primark then...

[mrsmelly]

Nigel, with the greatest respect, I thought this thread would go away as it get's my goat.

 

All this legal mumbo jumbo & poncing around the subject is crazy.

 

Basically, you & others like you 'blatantly' take the piss too much..... end of. That is the crux of it, regardless of whether BW did not follow 'procedures' correctly.

 

You may be very intelligent but that does not make you 'smart'.

 

Please note the words 'blatantly' & 'too much'. Rocket science it ain't!

 

Yup....that about sums it up. Greenie.

 

Tim

[Smelly]

High praise from the court Mr Moore... respect!

[Smelly]

and to Nigel's detractors I would remind you that the situation had gone on, unchallenged for more than a decade, on commercial premises beside water over which some question as to permissions to moor had; for all that time, fallen in favour of Mr Moore.

 

Then the developers moved in and the goalposts moved.

 

I'd be in court over that too!

[costalot]

I'm somewhat confused by some of the comments in this discussion. Is the High Court order dated 16 Feb 2012 the latest? It's the version I read and at the summing up I thought the relevant parts of the Judges decision were....

 

23. "I accept the point that ultimately BWB have established a right to do what they wished to do, which is to remove or move “Gilgie”

BWB are right?

24. "I have had reservations as to the way that BWB proceeded"

They are right despite their various procedural failures.

 

26. ". It is not a legitimate expectation that one should be able to establish and defend one’s rights at the expense of the person who is denying them; those embarking on litigation need to be aware that, however just they may conceive their cause, they will generally be required to pay for the exercise if in the event they do not prevail in their legal claim. In my main judgment, I characterised his approach as being somewhat relentless and obstinate. I also have taken into account, and I do now again, the fact that (perhaps signifying his misplaced view of entitlement) he has only offered £1 a month in payment on account of the orders for costs made against him by Mr. Mann QC and the Court of Appeal; that offer of £1 per month, even in his difficult financial circumstances, does appear to be something of a declaration of indifference to orders of the Court."

Don't offend the court

 

27. "is this a case where conduct should be reflected in the ultimate order made? Answer: yes, it should be - and that detracts from the claim for costs made by BWB, though Mr Moore’s conduct has tended to extravagance. Thirdly, would it be right to order a percentage or simply to make no order as to costs, in the particular circumstances of the case? I have been tempted to make an order for no order as to costs, but it does seem to me that Mr. Moore’s false sense of entitlement needs to be reflected"

If the defendant hadn't been so extragavant, relentless and obstinate he probably wouldn't have had to pay.

28. "I therefore propose that Mr. Moore should pay 25% of the costs of BWB"

 

# . "I appreciate this causes a considerable difficulty for Mr. Moore who, as I said, is in a very difficult financial position; but it has been his choice to fight on so many fronts and to take up the cudgels (as he perceives it) on behalf of other boaters. I feel I have to approach the question as to the incidence of costs rigorously in accordance with the rules and that is what my decision is."

 

What this indicates to me is despite BW getting their process wrong (and apparently annoying the court on at least one occasion) the Court decided they had a right to remove the boat. Although the judge was of the mind to not order the defendant to pay costs he decided to order the defendant to pay 25% because of his attitude.

[rgreg]

well you know something, rgreg?

 

it ain't going to happen, ever, not ever.

 

And the fact that this causes you anguish makes me happy.

 

But I'll tell you something. I won't say "the sooner the waterways are rid of people like you the better" because unlike you I recognise and encourage your right to share this wonderful resource.

 

Now go and scowl at the next person on your list of the day.

 

Oh dear, Mr Pink, I just noticed your post on re-reading this thread so sorry about the belated response. Just to clarify my view on others using the waterways: I recognise and actively encourage everyones' right to share this wonderful resource, in fact, we all need to if it is to survive. Everyone, that is, who are prepared to make a contribution, observe the rules, and do their best to avoid the diversion of money and resources from maintenance.

[Tuscan]

Oh dear, Mr Pink, I just noticed your post on re-reading this thread so sorry about the belated response. Just to clarify my view on others using the waterways: I recognise and actively encourage everyones' right to share this wonderful resource, in fact, we all need to if it is to survive. Everyone, that is, who are prepared to make a contribution, observe the rules, and do their best to avoid the diversion of money and resources from maintenance.

 

 

 

 

Green thingie

[NigelMoore]

What this indicates to me is despite BW getting their process wrong (and apparently annoying the court on at least one occasion) the Court decided they had a right to remove the boat. Although the judge was of the mind to not order the defendant to pay costs he decided to order the defendant to pay 25% because of his attitude.

 

Very good summation.

 

It is the basis of the judge's decision that BW had a right to remove the boat [that was NOT the basis upon which BW argued they had a right to remove the boat] that I am appealing.

 

. . . I recognise and actively encourage everyones' right to share this wonderful resource, in fact, we all need to if it is to survive. Everyone, that is, who are prepared to make a contribution, observe the rules, and do their best to avoid the diversion of money and resources from maintenance.

 

On the off-chance that these characterisations are directed at me and the affected boat-owners:-

 

“make a contribution” – see previous posts. We made our contribution even in circumstances where the court eventually decided we did not need to.

 

“observe the rules” – we were found not to be in breach of any rules; the judge concluded that Section 8 applied even in the absence of any breach of regulations.

 

“avoid the diversion of money” – that was precisely the burden of my initial letter to the chairman of the Board. It was his decision to leave matters in the hands of their solicitors, declining my invitation to meet and discuss things.

[Nightwatch]

Very good summation.

 

It is the basis of the judge's decision that BW had a right to remove the boat [that was NOT the basis upon which BW argued they had a right to remove the boat] that I am appealing.

 

 

 

On the off-chance that these characterisations are directed at me and the affected boat-owners:-

 

"make a contribution" – see previous posts. We made our contribution even in circumstances where the court eventually decided we did not need to.

 

"observe the rules" – we were found not to be in breach of any rules; the judge concluded that Section 8 applied even in the absence of any breach of regulations.

 

"avoid the diversion of money" – that was precisely the burden of my initial letter to the chairman of the Board. It was his decision to leave matters in the hands of their solicitors, declining my invitation to meet and discuss things.

Remaind me not to get into an argument with you. You're worse than the wife!

 

Martyn

[mrsmelly]

Remaind me not to get into an argument with you. You're worse than the wife!

 

Martyn

 

No Martyn hes worse than a politician !! With that amount of cows droppings he has missed his way in life !!

 

Tim

[NigelMoore]

Remaind me not to get into an argument with you. You're worse than the wife!

 

 

It sounds as though you have the happiness to be married to a most estimable woman. Congratulations!

[Athy]

...who, we trust, does not read these pages. Otherwise there could be drama down at sleepy Clattercote Wharf real soon. It's a good thing he's got himself a guard dog.