Boater Sues C&RT for Section 8

[Geo]

The sealed Order of Chief Master Marsh has just arrived:

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/323162475/Ravenscroft-v-CaRT-Order-of-Sep-2016

 

 

I would seem that CRT have not got their way of back to the County Court. When is the court likely to make a decision on McKenzie friend issue?

 

I can see you and Leigh are going to be busy.

 

How is Leigh about the costs issues? PM the answer if you wish

Edited September 6, 2016 by Geo

[nicknorman]

Got it now, had to restart the scribd app.

 

Presumably "reserved" means they haven't decided yet?

 

And for the costs thing it almost sounds like Leigh has to pay their costs before the trial starts, but surely not?

[MtB]

And for the costs thing it almost sounds like Leigh has to pay their costs before the trial starts, but surely not?

 

 

I think that's right, which is why Nige raised the possibility a few days back of Leigh needing a crowd funding appeal.

[Hawkmoth]

It sounds as if they will get costs whether they lose or win. that doesn't seem very fair. Am I all at sea here?

Bob

[MtB]

It sounds as if they will get costs whether they lose or win. that doesn't seem very fair. Am I all at sea here?

Bob

 

 

I think as Leigh is taking action against CRT and causing them to incur the expenditure not the other way around, yes it's fundamentally fair.

[nicknorman]

I think as Leigh is taking action against CRT and causing them to incur the expenditure not the other way around, yes it's fundamentally fair.

But surely not in advance of the case being heard?

[MtB]

But surely not in advance of the case being heard?

 

 

Why not?

 

A litigant should not be free to force a defendant to incur huge legal costs at no risk to himself.

But fair or not, that's beside the point. ISTR Nige saying the court may well require Leigh to lodge a sum that will cover CRT's costs. This is one of CRT's strategies for beating down the little man.

[Jerra]

But surely not in advance of the case being heard?

If the case was the other way round i.e. the large organisation causing the individual costs, many would think it was a good thing I am sure.

[Phil.]

But surely not in advance of the case being heard?

It is a clever way for the rich or organisations to avoid having to face the accusations in court. They can make an application that an individual submits the funds to cover costs if they think that they will not be paid post a result. Unless you are of sufficient means it usually ends the proceedings at that point. Nice if you can get away with it.

[MtB]

Its one of CRTs methods of avoiding having the merits of a case actually aired in court.

[nicknorman]

Why not?

 

A litigant should not be free to force a defendant to incur huge legal costs at no risk to himself.But fair or not, that's beside the point. ISTR Nige saying the court may well require Leigh to lodge a sum that will cover CRT's costs. This is one of CRT's strategies for beating down the little man.

Because it means if someone has wronged you, you can't sue them unless you are very rich. Hardly Justice! Of course if you lose the case, it means you were wrong to sue and thus you should have to pay costs, but not pay the costs until you have lost.

[Paul C]

It sounds as if they will get costs whether they lose or win. that doesn't seem very fair. Am I all at sea here?

Bob

 

As I understood it, whoever eventually wins, will have their costs paid by the loser (very approximately - as part of the judgement will be a costs order). Since CRT have a track record (of paying) and large assets, it doesn't need to lodge an amount "in case" in advance. Leigh, having no such track record, does need to. If he wins he'll get it back (and his own costs).

[MtB]

 

As I understood it, whoever eventually wins, will have their costs paid by the loser (very approximately - as part of the judgement will be a costs order). Since CRT have a track record (of paying) and large assets, it doesn't need to lodge an amount "in case" in advance. Leigh, having no such track record, does need to. If he wins he'll get it back (and his own costs).

 

 

Exactly. CRT fear Leigh will not be able to pay their costs should he lose, so they ask for him to lodge their estimated costs with the court to cover the potential debt.

 

When he wins he will get it all back obviously.

[Paul C]

I think its called "Security for Costs".

[Phil.]

I think its called "Security for Costs".

It may be called that but it's a good way to keep the plebs in their place.

[Paul C]

It may be called that but it's a good way to keep the plebs in their place.

 

Its also a good way to ensure that CRT don't lose £80k or so, if someone unsuccessfully tries to sue them and subsequently loses.

It does also leave an interesting situation if/when crowd funding is set up for Leigh - if he wins, those who donated should expect their money back. So, people who believe he will win should not be discouraged from contributing relatively large amounts.

[MtB]

Out of 30,000 boaters, I'd estimate perhaps one in 100 might feel willing to support Leigh to the extend of stumping up some significant cash.

 

That's 300 people lending him £270 each, in round figures.

[tomsk]

Or a lot more a lot less. Have we the balls to call it?

[pearlygeoff]

If you bothered to read my website - Canal and river tyranny - you might be better informed about the ways CRT can defeat any challenge through the courts and why they refuse to consider any challenge other than through the courts.

 

Running up the costs that you are exposed to is one of the less devious ways.

 

In my case CRT had several hearings with a solicitor from Shoosmiths and submissions from a QC and, at the 'trial' (4 days plus one 'reading' day) had three solicitors and a barrister. Unnecessary overkill but costs no problem even though they couldn't recover them. Not a problem for me as I had legal aid although they did try to saddle me with the costs.

 

Consider the case in question; Leigh Ravenscroft is a litigant in person and has no costs other than court paperwork costs. He has assistance with representation at no cost. CRT have no exposure to costs and yet, disgracefully, seek to disqualify Nigel from the role of a Mckenzie Friend.

 

In the meantime they have run up £80,000 in costs - paid for by you in licence and mooring fees, public funds and charitable donations - which they then seek to have placed with the court before the case can proceed.

 

It can't proceed on that basis. If it did and Leigh won the case CRT have already said - as they did in my case - they will appeal. More expenses and more exposure to costs.

 

My website is about how they get away with whatever they do however unlawful. Some of you think that's acceptable.

 

You should read it. You WILL learn something.

[Phil.]

Its also a good way to ensure that CRT don't lose £80k or so, if someone unsuccessfully tries to sue them and subsequently loses.It does also leave an interesting situation if/when crowd funding is set up for Leigh - if he wins, those who donated should expect their money back. So, people who believe he will win should not be discouraged from contributing relatively large amounts.

Agreed, it does protect CRT funds, but it also ensures that justice is the preserve of the rich and organisations only. If your happy with that then the status quo is fine. Perhaps the saying ' blind justice ' should be changed to ' blind justice unless your poor in which case you can p!55 off ' .

Edited September 6, 2016 by Phil.

[Paul C]

Agreed, it does protect CRT funds, but it also ensures that justice is the preserve of the rich and organisations only. If your happy with that then the status quo is fine. Perhaps the saying ' blind justice ' should be changed to ' blind justice unless your poor in which case you can p!55 off ' .

 

Maybe Leigh or Nigel can appeal the costs, or the need to pay in advance, if they feel its unjust.

[Phil.]

Maybe Leigh or Nigel can appeal the costs, or the need to pay in advance, if they feel its unjust.

To be fair to CRT, it is an application any defendant can make if they think they will win the case and then not be paid. It is also worthy of note that in considering the application the judge will set the amount relative to the strength of the case, ie the more the award the weaker the case in the opinion of the judge. It is also the case that he should take account in an award to ensure that it is not oppressive if it may stifle a genuine claim.

[NigelMoore]

To answer the various queries regarding the costs orders [yet to be finalised] – agreed, it is not fair that a winner of a case should wind up having to pay any of the costs of the loser, but that is the way the system works, when an LiP goes up against a rich and powerful corporation employing expensive counsel. It happened to me too.

Alan – the £81,000 is the projected costs of the whole fight, as approved by the Court. They may spend that much, they may spend double, but that is the ceiling on what they could claim in the unlikely event of success. Just to clarify - there is nothing relating to pre-payment of this ['Security for Costs'] in what the present Order is saying.

The costs orders to date [awaiting quantification] are only in respect of CaRT’s application to strike out the Claim. Although they did not succeed in that, they succeeded in getting the Statement of Case struck out [which was a fall-back position], so even though only a partial success, it was nonetheless a success, and according to the rules, they are entitled to their costs relating to that.

What proportion of their costs relate to that partial success, as distinct from the costs relating to their failures, is yet to be quantified, and when any of those costs are to be paid, remains up in the air also. The only clear direction thus far is that any costs “thrown away” in considering the Statement of Case since struck out, is reserved to the final conclusion of the case [i had argued that they would have to face the arguments in the Statement anyway].

I made the point clearly enough, I think, when responding to the Master’s desire to hear what the Claimant had to say about all this, that any decision as to these interim costs [especially as CaRT have acknowledged that Leigh has no funds to pay these], ought not to be made a pre-condition of pursuing the case. Any pursuit of summary costs findings and orders to pay, would, in the circumstances, be a denial of Leigh’s right to justice.

Also, given the stated and acknowledged desire of CaRT to obtain a High Court ruling on the meaning of ‘main navigable channel’, it would be an absurdity for them at this stage, and in the light of their claimed deisre for certitude, to use interim costs orders to halt the Claim, and thus throw away all the incurred costs thus far without accomplishing that certitude. Rest assured that this is not going to happen.

[NigelMoore]

 

I would seem that CRT have not got their way of back to the County Court.

 

Indeed not; that was a major success for Leigh. To give due credit to Mr Stoner, it was partly by reason of his acknowledgement of how far issues overlapped each other, that persuaded the Master of the advisability of having all three major issues heard at this level.

[NigelMoore]

 

When is the court likely to make a decision on McKenzie friend issue?

 

 

I have no idea when the Court is likely to make that decision. Given that the trial of the action cannot take place before March next year, there is no pressing urgency over the issue [although Leigh would need to know in good time, if he needs to find somebody else]..

 

There are a number of factors that the Master will have to be taking into account, amongst them the question of whether CaRT should be allowed to rely on “without prejudice” material, specifically on a portion of an email I wrote to them, when attempting to resolve matters out of Court.

 

The Court understands that Leigh would be disadvantaged without someone suitably literate to speak for him in Court – the only real question is: should I be the one allowed to fill that role, if Leigh cannot get funding to pay a suitable Barrister?