NBTA Press Release : The continuous cruising case CRT couldn't win

[Alf Roberts]

NATIONAL BARGEE TRAVELLERS ASSOCIATION

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

22nd February 2015

 

THE CONTINUOUS CRUISING CASE CRT COULDN'T WIN

 

CRT settled with a boater and kept the outcome confidential in a

continuous cruising case last year. The case of CRT v Wingfield (3NG01237)

was heard by HHJ Pugsley in Chesterfield County Court on 3rd and 4th March

2014. The resulting court order included a confidentiality clause

preventing anyone from disclosing the terms of the settlement.

 

Mr Wingfield normally travelled between Loughborough and Newark, two

places 36 miles apart by water. On Christmas Eve 2012 he travelled to

Nottingham and got trapped in floods on the River Trent for two months.

This meant he was targeted by an enforcement officer, who terminated his

boat licence, even though Section 17(3)©(ii) of the British Waterways

Act 1995 allows stays of longer than 14 days when it is reasonable in the

circumstances.

 

Nick Brown, Legal Officer of the National Bargee Travellers Association

(NBTA) said We believe that CRT settled with Mr Wingfield because they

knew they could not win, given Mr Wingfield's cruising distance and the

fact his licence was terminated when he was trapped in floods. He added

It is significant that the case was heard in full before CRT decided to

settle. The Judge must have given a strong indication that CRT did not

have a good case for terminating Mr Wingfield's boat licence.

 

Mr Wingfield discussed his past cruises, the 2012-2013 floods and the

enforcement action on Facebook and other forums in early 2013. Boaters

advised him to contact the NBTA, who referred him to a solicitor.

 

A letter from Nottingham County Court to the NBTA on 18th June 2014 stated

The Order of 4th March does specifically say that settlement was reached

by the parties and that a copy of the settlement shall not be released to

anyone other than the solicitors for the parties. Normally CRT publishes

the court orders it obtains in Section 8 cases on its web site here

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/publication-scheme/publication-scheme/court-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterways.

The case was transferred from Nottingham County Court to Chesterfield

County Court due to pressures on Court time.

[Guest]

"CRT settled and kept it confidential"

 

Wow that is terrible......what must they be thinking of?

 

Oh hang on.......

 

"The resulting court order resulted in a confidentiality clause"

[Alf Roberts]

I see you haven't understood the meaning of the word 'settlement'.

[Sabcat]

"CRT settled and kept it confidential"

 

Wow that is terrible......what must they be thinking of?

 

Oh hang on.......

 

"The resulting court order resulted in a confidentiality clause"

 

It's not exactly good though, is it? On the face of it they've gone after a boater for overstaying when the reasons for doing so were flooding. They've taken this all the way to court and wasted a lot of money in doing so. Sure, there's always 2 sides to a story but in this case, we're not going to hear it because the settlement is confidential.

[Guest]

I see you haven't understood the meaning of the word 'settlement'.

Of course I have understood.

 

My comment relates to the structure and wording of the press release, which is deliberately done in a way to make it look like CRT deliberately opted to keep the terms of the settlement confidential when in fact they had no choice.

It's not exactly good though, is it? On the face of it they've gone after a boater for overstaying when the reasons for doing so were flooding. They've taken this all the way to court and wasted a lot of money in doing so. Sure, there's always 2 sides to a story but in this case, we're not going to hear it because the settlement is confidential.

I don't know. My problem is the wording.

[jenlyn]

Of course I have understood.

My comment relates to the structure and wording of the press release, which is deliberately done in a way to make it look like CRT deliberately opted to keep the terms of the settlement confidential when in fact they had no choice.

 

I don't know. My problem is the wording.

You don't think CRT instigated the non disclosure?

[Guest]

You don't think CRT instigated the non disclosure?

Perhaps, however it is not what the release actually says. It says CRT kept the terms confidential when actually they were instructed to.

Edited February 22, 2015 by MJG

[Sabcat]

the non disclosure is less of an issue than the enforcement action against a boat trapped by flooding to my mind. Utterly disgusting behaviour. That the action got all the way to court is mind boggling.

[dmr]

NBTA are often rather selective in what they quote (just like CaRT).

Assuming this is true then it does nothing to strengthen or weaken the case of those who challenge the rules of continuous cruising vs continuous mooring..

What it does do is to show CaRT behaving like vindictive bullies and idiots and somehow all boaters need to unite and stop CaRT from doing this, it is in no-ones interest. There are enough boaters about who are totally ignoring the rules and it is starting to look like CaRT prefer to go after people who they don't like who are slightly bending the rules.

 

...............Dave

[Guest]

the non disclosure is less of an issue than the enforcement action against a boat trapped by flooding to my mind. Utterly disgusting behaviour. That the action got all the way to court is mind boggling.

Maybe so, my comment stands though. The press release is deliberately worded in a certain manner.

[jenlyn]

Perhaps, however it is not what the release actually says. It says CRT kept the terms confidential when actually they were instructed to.

I can't see where it says they were" instructed to"

[Peter X]

As someone who hasn't done much boating I have no first hand experience of CRT enforcement, but would hope that CRT would take a very relaxed view of a boater who is unable to move due to floods or other circumstances genuinely beyond his/her control, but having said that a couple of questions stand out to me about this press release:

 

(1) Why do courts order that an out of court settlement be kept secret in a case like this? There doesn't seem to be any need to protect someone's privacy, and while there is no actual court verdict, wouldn't public knowledge of settlements reached in previous cases help to prevent later cases going as far as court, by giving some indication of what might happen?

 

(2) As we don't know what the settlement was, how can Nick Brown or anyone else say with any certainty that CRT lost? Is he saying that Mr Wingfield illegally disclosed the deal to him? Otherwise, for all we know Mr Wingfield may have effectively lost?

[Guest]

I can't see where it says they were" instructed to"

Well a confidentiality clause of a court normally has to be abided to. Same thing in my book.

[jenlyn]

NBTA are often rather selective in what they quote (just like CaRT).

Assuming this is true then it does nothing to strengthen or weaken the case of those who challenge the rules of continuous cruising vs continuous mooring..

What it does do is to show CaRT behaving like vindictive bullies and idiots and somehow all boaters need to unite and stop CaRT from doing this, it is in no-ones interest. There are enough boaters about who are totally ignoring the rules and it is starting to look like CaRT prefer to go after people who they don't like who are slightly bending the rules.

 

...............Dave

Greenie and totally agree.

[GoodGurl]

**mod cap off**

so it's ok for CRT to publish a case if it won but not if it loses? double standards or what.

[Sabcat]

Well a confidentiality clause of a court normally has to be abided to. Same thing in my book.

 

If I'm understanding this properly, it's not the court. It wasn't ruled on, CRT settled, if that's the case then it's CRT and CRT alone that have made non disclosure an condition.

[Alf Roberts]

Perhaps, however it is not what the release actually says. It says CRT kept the terms confidential when actually they were instructed to.

no, Martin, let me explain; CRT reached a settlement, part of the terms of which were that the settlement was kept confidential.

 

clearer now ?

[Tony Dunkley]

NBTA are often rather selective in what they quote (just like CaRT).

Assuming this is true then it does nothing to strengthen or weaken the case of those who challenge the rules of continuous cruising vs continuous mooring..

What it does do is to show CaRT behaving like vindictive bullies and idiots and somehow all boaters need to unite and stop CaRT from doing this, it is in no-ones interest. There are enough boaters about who are totally ignoring the rules and it is starting to look like CaRT prefer to go after people who they don't like who are slightly bending the rules.

 

...............Dave

Do you think that the man who stayed tied up because the Trent was in flood was 'bending the rules' ?

[Thorfast]

Very misleading press Release. The first sentence is not true.

Surely if the allegation that CRT are misleading the public in this action outcome, then so are the NBTA with the wording of this press Release. Pot? Kettle?

 

Please note I am not commenting on the action itself, but on the actions of CRT and NBTA.

[Dave_P]

Rhe confidentiality clause could have been requested by either party. In fact I can think of more possible reasons why it came from Mr Wingfield.

[Guest]

no, Martin, let me explain; CRT reached a settlement, part of the terms of which were that the settlement was kept confidential.

clearer now ?

I say again, yes I understand this Alf.....

 

That is not how the press release is worded though.

 

clearer now?

[jenlyn]

Rhe confidentiality clause could have been requested by either party. In fact I can think of more possible reasons why it came from Mr Wingfield.

Oh go on then, this should be good.

[Guest]

Very misleading press Release. The first sentence is not true.

Surely if the allegation that CRT are misleading the public in this action outcome, then so are the NBTA with the wording of this press Release. Pot? Kettle?

Please note I am not commenting on the action itself, but on the actions of CRT and NBTA.

Thank goodness somebody else on here can read.....

[peterboat]

Well a confidentiality clause of a court normally has to be abided to. Same thing in my book.

I can see what you are saying Martin at no point does it say that CRT settled it says the parties settled and dont talk about it. Surly this means that NBTA or whatever they call themselves should not be talking about it just a thought

 

Peter

[Tony Dunkley]

Very misleading press Release. The first sentence is not true.

Surely if the allegation that CRT are misleading the public in this action outcome, then so are the NBTA with the wording of this press Release. Pot? Kettle?

 

Please note I am not commenting on the action itself, but on the actions of CRT and NBTA.

 

How have you arrived at that conclusion ?