Boater Sues C&RT for Section 8

[NigelMoore]

Oh dear . . . deja vu . . .

Have just received CaRT’s skeleton argument for the Directions Hearing, and they are STILL batting on about little else other than how I should be kept out of it. I have had a quick read and see nothing about the issues to be decided, other than a virtual postscript, suggesting that only the MNC definition be tried as a preliminary issue in the High Court, before sending everything else back to County Court level.

They are going to try for costs orders at this stage also, to stop things proceeding.

 

They are also complaining that the Reply to their Defence is probably too much at 27 pages, even though they have not read it properly yet! "The Trust reserves the right to object to the document if, after more detailed consideration, the Trust considers the document to be too prolix or otherwise objectionable." Well I don't believe it can be considered prolix, but I guarantee they will find it objectionable.

It is really very depressing; back to where we were a year ago, with mounting costs and nothing but obstructive and disruptive tactics deployed to grind an individual into dust beneath the faceless machinery of protocols. We could have had this all done and dusted a year ago, if they had only faced up to the issues involved with frankness and humility. Kafka would never have written Der Process if he was alive today; the fantasy element would have been totally nullified.

Still – on a more cheerful note, I am putting out feelers to recommended professionals and am getting optimistic feed-back expressing interest. Will provide updates when appropriate.

The issues list from the last Bundle remain:

From CaRT: - https://www.scribd.com/document/322241448/CaRT-List-of-Issues

From Leigh: - https://www.scribd.com/document/322241447/Ravenscroft-List-of-Issues

And Leigh’s Skeleton regarding these issues: - https://www.scribd.com/document/322243676/Ravenscroft-v-CaRT-Claimant-Skeleton-Re-Issues

Can’t be bothered publishing CaRT’s skeleton just now; way too depressingly regurgitated from the last one [with added extras], and it contributes nothing more respecting the isues than the suggestion I have already quoted. It remains to be seen whether the Chief Master deals with the issues at stake, or plays CaRT's game instead. One might have thought it high time to just get to grips with the case itself, but I stopped trying to second guess the Courts long ago.

[NigelMoore]

OK, having braced myself to wade through the stodge for specifics, the answer to my query over the CWDF quotes is (paragraph 31): -

“The Trust generally relies, in opposing the application to appoint Mr Moore as a McKenzie Friend and also to grant him rights of audience, upon the points made in the statements of Ms Barry and in particular: . . . (5) The online comments of Mr Moore on this case referred to in the second statement of Lucy Barry [Tab 28/Pages 369-376]. The reason these are referred to is because they call into question whether they are the comments of a person who is suitable to be appointed as a McKenzie Friend and/or to be granted rights of audience.” [my bold]

Not very illuminating. I would frankly have thought Mr Stoner should have been grateful for my public revelation that some of what he had been instructed to insert into his Defence was false to fact. I have helped prevent him from being blind-sided in Court over the lies vouchsafed by his client. Oh well . . . ‘no good deed etc’.

[NigelMoore]

Just one thing I find peculiar - why does debbifiggy follow this anonymously? I cannot believe that anyone imagined that CaRT were not following this and similar threads, so the coyness is just silly.

[Jerra]

The reason these are referred to is because they call into question whether they are the comments of a person who is suitable to be appointed as a McKenzie Friend and/or to be granted rights of audience.” [my bold]

 

It seems strange to me (knowing nothing about the processes) that one side should have the right to object to who is involved for the opposition.

 

It hardly seems like justice. A case of "Oh we will have a more difficult time trying to win if he is there so let's stop him". That doesn't give level playing field and IMO reflects badly on CRT. (I hope they are following this).

[NigelMoore]

(I hope they are following this).

 

CaRT’s ‘Boating Co-ordinator’ Deborah Figueiredo, follows this closely, though you wouldn’t know, because she chooses to do so anonymously, and has not been ‘visible’ for a long time. Before going ‘private’, she posted here as “debbifiggy”.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showuser=2918

 

She was definitely reading through this thread in late May this year, because on the 27th she emailed a copy of my post #444 to Steven Holder [CaRT Solicitor] and Jackie Lewis [CaRT Head of Legal and General Counsel], whence it found its way to Shoosmiths.

 

So you can rest assured that if you want something brought to CaRT’s attention, posting on here is a good way to achieve that [although you will never get confirmation that it is read].

 

Debbifiggy has always been keen on s.8’s; so much so that she worried even Mr Justice Hildyard – “In so far as the interior processes of BWB I also call to mind the unsettling email by one of its internal employees that if it was up to her she would simply “snatch the vessel”. All these were matters which caused me some considerable concern.”

 

[Jerra]

 

CaRT’s ‘Boating Co-ordinator’ Deborah Figueiredo, follows this closely, though you wouldn’t know, because she chooses to do so anonymously, and has not been ‘visible’ for a long time. Before going ‘private’, she posted here as “debbifiggy”.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showuser=2918

 

She was definitely reading through this thread in late May this year, because on the 27th she emailed a copy of my post #444 to Steven Holder [CaRT Solicitor] and Jackie Lewis [CaRT Head of Legal and General Counsel], whence it found its way to Shoosmiths.

 

So you can rest assured that if you want something brought to CaRT’s attention, posting on here is a good way to achieve that [although you will never get confirmation that it is read].

 

Debbifiggy has always been keen on s.8’s; so much so that she worried even Mr Justice Hildyard – “In so far as the interior processes of BWB I also call to mind the unsettling email by one of its internal employees that if it was up to her she would simply “snatch the vessel”. All these were matters which caused me some considerable concern.”

 

So basically the CRT PR department (because all these ridiculous court cases have a definite knock on effect on how CRT are viewed not just by boaters) shouldn't be put in charge of a seaside donkey!

[Hawkmoth]

So basically the CRT PR department (because all these ridiculous court cases have a definite knock on effect on how CRT are viewed not just by boaters) shouldn't be put in charge of a seaside donkey!

For what it's worth I have today cancelled my DD donations to CRT. I'm damned if I want my money propping up a rich firm of solicitors.

Bob

[NigelMoore]

It seems strange to me (knowing nothing about the processes) that one side should have the right to object to who is involved for the opposition.

 

It has to be remembered that the entire judicial system is a professional institution, and – as with all such institutions – jealous of their prerogatives and practices. It takes years of expensive training, practice and vetting to become a person approved as someone capable of representing cases before the Courts, and the system is no happier with the idea of amateurs stepping into those shoes than the medical profession would be happy with mere paramedics conducting brain surgery.

 

Quite apart from the closed-shop mentality, there are sound practical reasons for this, because amateurs – with their limited appreciation of the relevant procedures, rules and protocols - can severely hamper the efficiency of the judicial process.

 

As a consequence, very strict rules apply to the scope of amateur assistance allowed. One of the ‘Rules’ [‘Practice Notes’] guiding the grant of permission has to do with the growth of amateur representatives who make litigation their business [sometimes charging even more in specialty fields than the professionals!] This forms one of the grounds for CaRT’s objection: because I have helped others in their struggles with CaRT’s legal machinations, I should be disqualified from helping Leigh. As their Skeleton Argument puts it: -

 

“The Practice Note highlights that ‘Courts should be slow to grant any application from a litigant for a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation to any lay person, including a MF”. paragraph 19.” . . . “It is also relevant to note in the context of this claim:

(1) “The grant of a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation to lay persons who hold themselves out as professional advocates or professional MF’s or who seek to exercise such rights on a regular basis, whether for reward or not, will however only be granted in exceptional circumstances”. see paragraph 23. |In this respect the court should observe the content of paragraph 45 of Mr Ravenscroft’s statement [Tab 22/page 301] where he says “I have talked at length with these and other boaters who had faced similar issues and been assisted voluntarily by Mr Moore. I do not see why I should be denied the same assistance just because he has been effective in helping others.” The exceptional circumstances to appoint someone who has made it his business to assist others in claims against the Trust simply do not exist.” [my bold]

 

Actually, I do not recall assisting anyone to bring a claim against CaRT before; only with defending themselves against CaRT claims, and it seems quite a stretch to say that my volunteered assistance both personally and in general on this Forum, suffices to classify me as someone who holds themselves out as a professional advocate before the Courts, but you see the direction that is being taken. There are 10 pages of this stuff, with only the last 2 paragraphs concerning the actual case management.

 

[MtB]

As you pointed out earlier Nigel, it seems to me that all this apparently peripheral nit-picking is a deliberate strategy to drag things out and wear Leigh down with layer upon layer of delays. They are banking on Leigh (and/or you) deciding life's too short and dropping the case.

 

It's a difficult strategy to counter. But recognising it as a deliberate strategy rather than something happening simply by chance is the first step in figuring out a way to deal with it.

 

SImilarly with the racking up of costs. As you say, they are banking on Leigh alternatively running out of money. Crowd funding can fix that, but the former is more difficult. Maybe a publicity campaign drawing attention to how this is CRTs 'go to' strategy for avoiding issues being aired in court whenever there is a genuine risk of them losing.

[GUMPY]

 

CaRTs Boating Co-ordinator Deborah Figueiredo, follows this closely, though you wouldnt know, because she chooses to do so anonymously, and has not been visible for a long time. Before going private, she posted here as debbifiggy.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showuser=2918

 

Couple of points.

You don't need to be logged in to read this topic and because it says private in the profile, from information on the forum you have no idea when that person was last logged in, could be a year ago.

I think you will find that Debbie only logs in when she posts and that is not often.

Some of us always log in anonymously to forums as a matter of course, its easier stops prying eyes and people knowing what you are/have been reading.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Loddon

[Hawkmoth]

Mike

Very good. Greenie given.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Hawkmoth

[Tony Dunkley]

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . There are 10 pages of this stuff, with only the last 2 paragraphs concerning the actual case management.

 

 

Shouldn't they be very firmly slapped down by the Master next Thursday for this blatant time-wasting ? The question of you being permitted to assist Leigh and speak on his behalf got fairly extensive coverage on 23 March last, and I would have thought that this second bite at something that's already been ruled on won't be well received by the Court.

[NigelMoore]

It's a difficult strategy to counter. But recognising it as a deliberate strategy rather than something happening simply by chance is the first step in figuring out a way to deal with it.

 

Thanks MtB. You are right, but regardless of my determination and Leigh’s to continue fighting this, there has to come a point when no matter how unjust, the practical reality must be recognised that my involvement – in the Courtroom only, it needs to be emphasised – is a contributing factor enabling CaRT’s stalling.

 

I have no ambitions or pride at stake in the matter; I have “had my day in court” and have no hankering to pursue this as a career. I am happy with what I have managed to produce for Leigh behind the scenes, and am happy to continue contributing such specialist knowledge and expertise as I possess – but I believe it is time to try getting Leigh the sort of professional representation that could cut through the Shoosmiths bullshit and get the case presented effectively without all the delaying shenanigans.

 

I stand ready as always, to do my best if the Court allows, but it is sensible to be prepared for the worst. The silliest aspect of all this is that, so far as CaRT is concerned, the “damage” has already been done; the issues and background have been exposed for scrutiny, and having declined to sort things out through discussion around a table in person, the illegalities will now have to be confronted, whether in this case or the next, and the next, and the next . . .

 

[NigelMoore]

You don't need to be logged in to read this topic and because it says private in the profile, from information on the forum you have no idea when that person was last logged in, could be a year ago.

 

Understood. But whether she logs in anonymously or just reads as a guest, I know she has been reading this thread from at least December last year to May this year. I understand also, that one might only log in if intending to contribute, but when you ask the Forum to keep you informed of new posts, your tick of the box asking for anonymity is a deliberate choice - and I may well be wrong, but I suspect that she is the one anonymous 'follower' of this thread.

 

Just so as not to be misunderstood - I am delighted that she takes an interest and sends pertinent material to the legal department for their attention; I just fail to see why she feels it desirable to keep her interest hidden [but I don't care much about that either].

 

Anyway, as she has seen fit to now publicise the fact of her following the topic, everyone can be reassured that CaRT are kept appraised of the Forum's content.

[NigelMoore]

 

Shouldn't they be very firmly slapped down by the Master next Thursday for this blatant time-wasting ? The question of you being permitted to assist Leigh and speak on his behalf got fairly extensive coverage on 23 March last, and I would have thought that this second bite at something that's already been ruled on won't be well received by the Court.

 

Well that would be my view Tony, but who knows?

 

For all the blustering over the expense and time taken up over reading and analysing all my “prolix” material, that was all accomplished before we even had the very first CMC, and the content and issues were recognised clearly enough for us to be getting on with appropriate case management.

 

The year and more of wasted costs and time since then, has not been as a result of my involvement or material; it has all been down to the material produced by the professionals.

 

I too, thought we had got past the MF issues; it would be interesting if it eventuated that this insistent dog-with-a-bone behaviour counted against them, but we will just have to wait and see.

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

For what it's worth I have today cancelled my DD donations to CRT. I'm damned if I want my money propping up a rich firm of solicitors.

Bob

It is perhaps worth pointing out that your £5(?) per month DD is not propping up a rich firm of solicitors. This is because in 2015/16 (i.e. last financial year) it cost CaRT £7.20 for each £5 raised by donations from all sources. In its first four financial years CaRT CaRT's losses on charitable giving were £4.1m.

 

It would perhaps be fairer to say that the taxpayer and boater are both propping up a rich firm of solicitors and CaRT's fundraising efforts.

[mayalld]

 

Thanks MtB. You are right, but regardless of my determination and Leigh’s to continue fighting this, there has to come a point when no matter how unjust, the practical reality must be recognised that my involvement – in the Courtroom only, it needs to be emphasised – is a contributing factor enabling CaRT’s stalling.

 

 

I actually see the sentiment that you have expressed above as being just the sort of thing that they will use to argue against your continued involvement.

 

Your "determination" gives a clear picture that you see this as "your" fight as well as Leigh's fight.

 

CRT will (not entirely unreasonably) seek to argue that your involvement goes beyond helping Leigh, and that you have an agenda regarding CRT's powers that actually amounts to you being the prime mover in the litigation.

[NigelMoore]

 

I actually see the sentiment that you have expressed above as being just the sort of thing that they will use to argue against your continued involvement.

 

Your "determination" gives a clear picture that you see this as "your" fight as well as Leigh's fight.

 

CRT will (not entirely unreasonably) seek to argue that your involvement goes beyond helping Leigh, and that you have an agenda regarding CRT's powers that actually amounts to you being the prime mover in the litigation.

 

 

I completely fail to see how my ‘determination’ to continue helping with Leigh’s fight [and nothing and nobody can prevent that assistance outside of the courtroom] could legitimately be understood as demonstrating what you say, but you are absolutely correct: this is exactly what CaRT are arguing.

 

Thing is, it is just silly to take this attitude. I have been saying the same thing here for years now; some time or another someone will run with the arguments regardless of whether Leigh’s case survives lack of representation or not. In that respect I have done my bit to disseminate the relevant information for anyone to use, and the courts will make whatever determination on that that they wish.

 

The rules being relied on by CaRT, relate to lay people acting as unqualified lawyers in the courtroom; there is no mechanism for preventing any form of assistance outside that arena. The cat is out of the bag so far as the material information is concerned, and CaRT just need to deal with it. I personally do not care if they have to face me personally, or anyone else, whereas they claim to be delighted to argue the toss with anyone except me.

 

So be it, if that can be arranged, but otherwise Leigh will be effectively neutered, which is what CaRT are aiming for. As I say, though, there is encouraging interest within the professional fraternity, reached as a result of PM’s from fellow CWDF members. Even if such avenues fail, Leigh will continue with whoever else he can get to help out; he is the driving force behind the litigation, as anyone watching him on videos will understand, and he now has the tools available for other assistants to use.

 

Come to that, Tony is probably more temperamentally suited to Leigh's approach than I am; I have seen myself as a calming and moderating influence in this!

 

[Hawkmoth]

It is perhaps worth pointing out that your £5(?) per month DD is not propping up a rich firm of solicitors. This is because in 2015/16 (i.e. last financial year) it cost CaRT £7.20 for each £5 raised by donations from all sources. In its first four financial years CaRT CaRT's losses on charitable giving were £4.1m.

 

It would perhaps be fairer to say that the taxpayer and boater are both propping up a rich firm of solicitors and CaRT's fundraising efforts.

I can't do anything about the points you raised. Are you trying to say that if people didn't donate then CRT would be better off? I don't think your reasoning is sound. Unless what you mean is that their own fund raising is losing because of the cost of touting for the money.

Bob

[Alan de Enfield]

I can't do anything about the points you raised. Are you trying to say that if people didn't donate then CRT would be better off? I don't think your reasoning is sound. Unless what you mean is that their own fund raising is losing because of the cost of touting for the money.

Bob

 

Basically C&RT ar paying its fund raising staff, and external 'chuggers' about £1 million per year more than those staff and Chuggers raise.

 

Taking the numbers at 'face value', C&RT would be £1 million per annum better off if they laid off all the fund raising staff,

 

The hierarchy of the fund raising department was published some time ago - it is astonishing that "so many, and so much cost, contributes to generating so little"

[Hawkmoth]

 

Basically C&RT ar paying its fund raising staff, and external 'chuggers' about £1 million per year more than those staff and Chuggers raise.

 

Taking the numbers at 'face value', C&RT would be £1 million per annum better off if they laid off all the fund raising staff,

 

The hierarchy of the fund raising department was published some time ago - it is astonishing that "so many, and so much cost, contributes to generating so little"

So my last sentence was correct?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

So my last sentence was correct?

Yes.

 

CaRT losses money on charitable giving because it expends more money finding and retaining donors than is raised each year.

[NigelMoore]

There was a last minute flurry of activity from debbifigggy before the hearing, forwarding on CWDF posts that ended up attached to a third Witness Statement from Shoosmiths, sent to the Court on the eve of the hearing.

The posts that got her all excited were: -

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76499&page=26#entry1871643

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76499&page=26#entry1871733

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76499&page=26#entry1871746

Mr Stoner read out some of these at the hearing, and I could not help smiling when, upon reading my comment about the “surprisingly weak” Defence, commented - in true professional style - that he took no offence at that, and that some of his skeleton arguments had been called a lot worse!

The Chief Master conducted a superbly even-handed hearing, giving priority – as was of course imperative – to the settling of what issues were to be heard and at what venue. He was determined to leave the question over my suitability as a MacKenzie Friend to the very last.

There was extended argument back and forth, with CaRT wanting only the MNC issue heard at High Court level as a preliminary issue, with the rest heard at County Court level, and with Leigh wanting everything heard at HC level.

It seemed touch and go for a long time, with the Master seemingly finding my arguments unpersuasive, but in the end all 3 major issues are to be heard in the High Court, and to be heard, moreover, by the highest level of judge.

It has been acknowledged by all that whoever loses will appeal, and unusually the Master accepted that any application for permission to appeal would probably be granted, given the level of public importance of the issue.

Mr Stoner urbanely suggested that – contrary to what ‘some’ might think - CaRT would welcome a firm binding decision whichever way it went, in order that certainty be achieved, to the betterment of the waterways’ governance.

‘Hear, Hear’ says I.

 

A very welcome element was the Master's recognition that Leigh would want the videos put in evidence, and that provision for displaying these would need to be made in the chosen courtroom. It is the content of the videos that gives the lie to what CaRT's witnesses have sworn to thus far, as to important facts. This just may be the ending of his career for Mr Parry's golden boy of enforcement.

Any decision as to my position as McKenzie Friend is being adjourned for further reflection by the Master, and is in any event at this stage far from urgent; I have been permitted to speak on all these last 3 hearings, and the case is to be listed for a four day trial sometime between first March and end of May next year.

Anyone who is able to set up the suggested crowd funding for Leigh to afford professional representation [whether permission for me is granted or not] – please come forward and get it going. I remain willing to contribute my time and expertise as before, by way of assisting/instructing any willing barrister keen to add such a major case to their CV.

[RichardN]

Crowd funding something that suggests mooring to a side of a waterway allows you to escape contributing to the upkeep of a waterway seems so wrong, a way of destroying the waterways.

[Alan de Enfield]

Crowd funding something that suggests mooring to a side of a waterway allows you to escape contributing to the upkeep of a waterway seems so wrong, a way of destroying the waterways.

 

You are suggesting then that you support C&RTs breaking of the law.