Boater With Home Mooring - Court Action Started.

[Tony Dunkley]

The thing is, they're not correct terms on the canals. There is already a whole different set of terminology that is in many cases just as old as that used at sea.

 

For example, a narrow boat doesn't have a bow, it has a fore end; it has lines and straps which are made from rope; they don't moor up, they tie up; they don't have port and starboard, but inside and outside, depending on where the towpath was; you don't have a boat hook, you have a cabin shaft or a short shaft, and it's not a pole, it's a long shaft. They don't have a deck head, they have a cabin top, and the engine is in the engine 'ole, next to the cabin.

Spot on . . . the inside and outside referred to the two sides of the cut, inside being the towpath. Instead of port and starboard as the two sides of a boat, canal boatmen (and women) always spoke of chimney side or sidebed side. Two particular pieces of line were also called strings( fore-end and stern, more usually pronounced as 'starn) and when not in use the butty's stern string was generally in a small diameter coil over the T-stud, while the motor's was in a similar sized coil on the cabin top, just ahead of the can, which incidentally was itself hard up against the chimney and not part way down the cabin top as frequently seen these days.

Edited August 29, 2014 by tony dunkley

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 

 

Surely this is a bit of an exaggeration ?

Just a bit.

 

Most of the terms come from the Dutch.

'Cause they used to be dead good at it.

 

Glenn

 

Sailing that is.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Goliath

[NigelMoore]

As for blaming CRT for not pressing the question of the legaity of their published CC rules in Mayers, the point is that they did not need to. By breaching the 14 day rule, Mayers handed CRT a valid reason to get an order to remove his boat, irrespective of the guidelines. The judge was correct when he said: "GDM's own actions have deprived this court of the ability to rule on whether the guidelines are congruent with the statutes which was his main purpose in provoking this litigation".

 

So... Mayers provoked the litigation. His own actions deprived the court of the ability to rule. That's why I say you can't blame CRT.

 

 

While not disputing anything you have said, it still, I think, misses my original point – which was that IF BW/CaRT were undertaking the action to establish a ‘precedent’, they could and should have asked the court to determine the point, regardless of Mr Mayers handing them the opportunity to avoid that necessity.

 

They had spent huge sums on the case anyway, and were [in the circumstances cited] in no danger of losing, even if the challenge to their 'guidance' went against them. So it would have been the right and commercially sensible thing to do, to obtain what they had ostensibly desired. Mr Mayers’ actions did not unilaterally prevent the court from ruling on the point, had the Claimant asked for it.

 

THAT is what I blame CaRT for – not taking the opportunity to have their argument tested. In the event, all that money was wasted on simply removing a single boat, to no greater advantage so far as their ability to control the system for the benefit of all.

[NigelMoore]

It seems appropriate to post an update on the case under the most appropriate heading, rather then under the “logging” topic. As widely publicised, the boat ‘licence’ has now been issued [3 weeks ago in fact], following a change in requirement for satisfaction as to the home mooring being valid. The case is still, however, ‘live’. The wrangle over how to end proceedings has yet to be resolved - hopefully this coming week will see some movement.

 

Tony had conditioned agreement to an adjourned case management hearing on CaRT filing a “Notice of Discontinuance” on issue of his ’licence’. This they had sensibly and reasonably agreed to –

 

 

Once the ‘licence’ was issued, Shoosmiths confirmed they awaited instructions to file the Notice –

 

 

But whether CaRT re-thought things, or Shoosmiths did, they changed their minds, and much to & fro-ing ensued, trying to persuade Tony that a Consent Order was the right way to end it. I explained elsewhere just how prejudicial this would be for anyone on the receiving end of such a lawsuit. With Tony rightly refusing to leave himself open to renewed proceedings at CaRT’s whim, the latest position from Thami Nomvete [CaRT solicitor] as at last Thursday 18th is –

“If you are not willing to sign the consent order in relation to the discontinuance of the present enforcement action we will have no option but to incur unnecessary costs in making an application to the court for a notice of discontinue with no order as to costs. I have instructed Lucy Barry at Shoosmiths to issue such an application.”

It will be interesting to see whether the wording of the previous Consent Order justifies “no order as to costs” for the whole proceedings to date, or for some lesser amount. The judge will decide.

 

One thing I do find peculiar is the business of claiming "unnecessary costs in making an application to the court for a notice of discontinuance" - that being precisely what they had agreed to! Even the Consent Order they wanted would have entailed costs, so where the issue arises is baffling.

 

At least some end to the sorry saga is in sight.

[Alan de Enfield]

Thanks for the update, at least some one has now turned on the light at the end of the tunnel

[Paul G2]

 

But whether CaRT re-thought things, or Shoosmiths did, they changed their minds, and much to & fro-ing ensued, trying to persuade Tony that a Consent Order was the right way to end it. I explained elsewhere just how prejudicial this would be for anyone on the receiving end of such a lawsuit. With Tony rightly refusing to leave himself open to renewed proceedings at CaRT’s whim, the latest position from Thami Nomvete [CaRT solicitor] as at last Thursday 18th is –

“If you are not willing to sign the consent order in relation to the discontinuance of the present enforcement action we will have no option but to incur unnecessary costs in making an application to the court for a notice of discontinue with no order as to costs. I have instructed Lucy Barry at Shoosmiths to issue such an application.”

It will be interesting to see whether the wording of the previous Consent Order justifies “no order as to costs” for the whole proceedings to date, or for some lesser amount. The judge will decide.

 

What does that mean, "...with no order as to costs."? What are the implications?

[NigelMoore]

 

What does that mean, "...with no order as to costs."? What are the implications?

 

The party that wishes to discontinue the action and unilaterally files a notice for that, is liable for the costs incurred by the party pursued. CaRT do not wish to have to pay the expenses to which Tony has been put owing to their actions, so they will ask the court for a dispensation against the norm, allowing them to get away without reimbursing him.

[Paul G2]

Thanks Nigel!

 

I would think that the email of August 27 constituted a bona fide settlement offer and that Tony's subsequent actions and payment constituted acceptance of that offer and performance of his side of the agreement. I realize this is taking contract law and applying it to a court case, but still it seems like CRT is on pretty shaky ground to try and renege on their offer after Tony has performed.

 

Richard Parry is not doing his reputation any favors by reneging on a written agreement in this manner. It really does set him apart as being a very petty person, not to mention a man whose word is of no value. Not only that but he's throwing Lucy Barry and Shoosmiths under the bus and that's not a very wise thing to do, considering his own attorneys know all the dirt and know where all the skeletons are buried.

 

Considering the financial boondoggles like PLM, the partnership plans and a landscaping contractor that's a multi-million pound joke, the legal boondoggles like Tony Dunkley, and the maintenance boondoggles like locks that don't hold water and complete lack of any preventative maintenance plan, it seems like Mr. Parry really isn't up to the job of caring for such a valuable national asset as CRT is responsible for. How long will he be allowed to be an abject failure on all fronts before those in power realize that he needs to be replaced? Doesn't CRT have a Board of Trustees that should be reviewing his performance history and making a decision about his obvious lack of ability to do the job he was hired to do? Doesn't anyone in authority care about his total lack of integrity as demonstrated in this Dunkley matter?

[Tuscan]

The trustees are I suspect backing Richard Parry in this action.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

The trustees are I suspect backing Richard Parry in this action.

Undoubtedly, but I suspect that backing will diminish somewhat if Tony is awarded his costs.

 

 

[NigelMoore]

Not only that but he's throwing Lucy Barry and Shoosmiths under the bus and that's not a very wise thing to do, considering his own attorneys know all the dirt and know where all the skeletons are buried.

 

He knows he is in no danger on that score – they are all of the same mind. As Thami later reveals [including Parry et al in circulating the email]

 

 

- they had used the willing Lucy Barry of Shoosmiths to make the recommendation for the Consent Order instead of the Notice, with the disingenuous ‘explanation’ that this was the proper way to end things –

 

 

As I said, who knows who first came up with the idea of reneging on the promise? Shoosmiths have something of a reputation and it is as likely as not that Ms Barry suggested this, relying on the fact the most lay persons would undoubtedly fail to see the ramifications involved in the differing processes. I doubt that Parry would have come up with the idea, it is just that he is a firm supporter of legal manoeuvres to evade the consequences of agreements.

[Staarek]

Sorry for an ignorant question but is there legaly defined number of days/months a year your boat needs to stay on home mooring to comply with the rules?

 

Thanks

[Paul C]

Sorry for an ignorant question but is there legaly defined number of days/months a year your boat needs to stay on home mooring to comply with the rules?

 

Thanks

 

Simple answer: no.

[Staarek]

 

Simple answer: no.

 

Thank you. So how can I know if I comply & if I won't be taken to court?

 

ED. Sorry what I meant was how can one know if he/she complies to the regulations in similar situation. Let's say that I've got home mooring but I spend most of the time cruising as I prefer that than sitting in the marina? I still use the marina as a base though.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Staarek

[Paul C]

 

Thank you. So how can I know if I comply & if I won't be taken to court?

 

You yourself are responsible for "complying" with the licence requirements. Do you currently have a boat?

[Staarek]

 

You yourself are responsible for "complying" with the licence requirements. Do you currently have a boat?

 

I do, but I'm CC'er.

[NigelMoore]

 

So how can I know if I comply & if I won't be taken to court?

 

You can only know if you comply with statutory requirements by educating yourself as to what those statutory requirements are.

 

You can never know if you comply with the shifting sands of current interpretations of the statutory requirements.

 

You will only be taken to court [as a general but not invariable rule] if you fail to go along with whatever current interpretation of the law the authority comes up with from time to time. You will ordinarily be given the chance to abide by those whether you agree them or not.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

Staarek, on 22 Sept 2014 - 4:24 PM, said:

 

I do, but I'm CC'er.

 

A CCer is a boat without a home mooring, this thread is about a boater with a home mooring who did not return to his home moring sufficiently and did not comply with the CC rules.

 

C&RT are now in the motions of 'dropping' the case as they realise they have opened a

 

[Tony Dunkley]

Yesterday afternoon the proceedings against me, now described by C&RT themselves as 'worthless and academic', did not come to an end in consequence of what appeared to be an administrative foul-up by Nottingham County Court.

Despite having filed, and received acknowledgement for, the written evidence and submission required by the Court some four weeks previously the Judge declared the main document, the submission, was not in the possession of the Court and therefore the matter could not be disposed of, and then followed that up by asking what it was that I wanted from the Court . . to say the least an odd question, having informed the Court on 19 September, in writing, of my intention to oppose any attempt by C&RT to be be exempted from the discontinuing Claimants' presumed liability as to Costs under the Civil Procedure Rules.

The brief hearing was then brought to a close with the Judge ordering another hearing in 3 weeks with an allotted time of 3 hours instead the 30 minutes originally estimated and allotted on 10 October on receipt of C&RT's Application Notice for the 'no costs' order. It was also ordered that the costs in todays hearing, estimated by Shoosmiths to be in excess of £1800.00 would be 'costs in the case', ie. added to any costs which may be awarded to C&RT in the event of their 'no costs' Application succeeding.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Tony Dunkley

[John V]

illigitimi non carborundum !!!

[Tony Dunkley]

illigitimi non carborundum !!!

That sounds like something to do with grinding John, but I'm afraid my schooldays Latin is too far back in the past.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Tony Dunkley

[John V]

sometimes written nil iligitimi carborundum.....mock latin......don't let the bastards those of undocumented parentage grind you down !!!

 

 

edit....forgot we have to be so careful nowadays!!!

Edited November 25, 2014 by John V

[jenlyn]

That sounds like something to do with grinding John, but I'm afraid my schooldays Latin far back in the past.

It means don't let the barstewards get you down, and I agree.

[Tony Dunkley]

sometimes written nil iligitimi carborundum.....mock latin......don't let the bastards those of undocumented parentage grind you down !!!

 

 

edit....forgot we have to be so careful nowadays!!!

 

It means don't let the barstewards get you down, and I agree.

Having come this far I'm certainly very reluctant to back off in any way, but the Courts' sloppy admin. and what came over as some measure of hostility from the Judge does mean some careful consideration must now be given as to whether I should continue to stand on a matter of principle. There are many High Court Judgements, including some upheld on Appeal, in cases and circumstances similar to this, that encourage to me continue, but the possibility of becoming an exception is not attractive.

[kevinl]

 

I do, but I'm CC'er.

What is the difference between a CC'er and a boat away from its home mooring, as far as I can see it's none. As soon as I leave my paid for mooring be it a marina or online the I have to stick to the rules 48 hours/7days/14 days or whatever until I return to my mooring, so once on the move we're all covered by the same rules.

Whether you have a mooring or not is a bit irrelevant once you're out and about on the canal the rules are the same for all of us, no hanging around one place too long.

For a few quids worth of diesel every 2 weeks you can save hundreds in mooring fees so if you live on a boat and you're tied to an area can you really be a CC'er? The rules are so vague, ill defined and open to interpretation maybe it needs a court case to define what is and isn't allowed that at least would tell everyone where they stand. Anyone CC'ing but tied to an area may find the prospect a bit scary but it could be a court decides moving a boat any distance of itself is compliance and CRT can't touch you.

K