Boater Sues C&RT for Section 8

[mross]

Certainly plausible - see http://bgr.com/2016/06/16/gmail-tricks-attachments-self-destruct/but rather sneaky. They can claim they sent it and that you opened the attachment and infer that you read it.

[NigelMoore]

Does he use Gmail?

 

Afraid not, his is a hotmail account.

 

I doubt whether either of us would be happy with my having complete access to his account – who would? It would be different if he had a dedicated email account to be used just for this [maybe worth looking into].

 

[mross]

I looked in Hotmail and it would be quite simple to set a rule that forwarded emails just from certain email addresses.

[pearlygeoff]

Certainly plausible - see http://bgr.com/2016/06/16/gmail-tricks-attachments-self-destruct/but rather sneaky. They can claim they sent it and that you opened the attachment and infer that you read it.

 

Or deny that they sent it or what it said. I think it was somewhat threatening but didn't read it thoroughly. I prefer to print things and read them thoroughly on paper. I couldn't print it. I, also, couldn't forward it.

 

This sort of thing is perfectly acceptable according to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. There's a letter to that effect somewhere on my website.

 

They can,basically, do anything they like in their client's interest even if knowingly to the detriment of the opposing party. Consequently 'dirty tricks' can prevail above all else which makes a mockery of the concept of 'truth and justice'.

 

The legal process is a scandal and a disgrace and seriously needs investigating. And everyone involved knows it but they learn to use it to their advantage which is why the honest layman is at a huge disadvantage. And why Shoosmiths are so much used by those who seek advantage over others with nefarious activity.

[NigelMoore]

I received an email from Shoosmiths with an attachment that disappeared shortly after being opened.

 

(Something else for the doubters and deniers to disbelieve)

 

And of course, if you receive only a string of emails, the attachments to the early emails do not necessarily come up at all.

 

Although Shoosmiths sent two identical versions of what they wanted to the court, with different tags on each, it is only fair to record that the Court clerks picked up on this and notified Shoosmiths.

 

Then it was a case of: “Oh gosh, how did that happen? Frightfully sorry, here is Mr Ravenscroft’s version” – but though this can be read from the email string behind the final triumphant notification to Leigh that the Master preferred their version, it is impossible to see what they sent the second time, as Leigh’s version.

 

Even if they had sent the correct one of course, it would have been minus the explanation that his was a cut and paste from the Master’s own words in the judgment. It is possible, but surely unlikely, that had he been aware of that, the Master would still have preferred Shoosmiths wording to his own.

 

What is always disturbing, however innocent it may be, is the first name familiarity between the CaRT lawyers and the clerks – this particular string was all “Dear Lucy” [shoosmiths]; “Dear Jo” [the court clerk]. This does not happen just with Shoosmiths mind you, I am seeing the same thing with Hounslow Council’s lawyers communicating with the court without copying me in [which I only find out when a string gets inadvertently sent on].

 

I looked in Hotmail and it would be quite simple to set a rule that forwarded emails just from certain email addresses.

 

That sounds an excellent idea - but can you explain how? I am not particularly computer-literate myself.

[mross]

Do you have Hotmail, yourself? It's been rebranded by Microsoft as Outlook.com. If not, can you open a free account with them and I can probably talk you through it

 

Or, you try their online help ONCE you are logged in

[Chewbacka]

I received an email from Shoosmiths with an attachment that disappeared shortly after being opened.

 

(Something else for the doubters and deniers to disbelieve)

 

 

Removed as it did not add anything to the discussion

Edited October 6, 2016 by Chewbacka

[NilesMI]

 

Then it was a case of: “Oh gosh, how did that happen? Frightfully sorry, here is Mr Ravenscroft’s version” – but though this can be read from the email string behind the final triumphant notification to Leigh that the Master preferred their version, it is impossible to see what they sent the second time, as Leigh’s version.

 

Well, that's a different version of events than the one you put forward in your earlier post - that Shoosmiths were being "clever" by sending the court two identical versions, being of their wording.

 

It might be helpful if you can reveal why you know what was in both versions that were sent to the Court by Shoosmiths first time round, but that it's impossible to know what was in the second version that was sent second time round.

[pearlygeoff]

 

And of course, if you receive only a string of emails, the attachments to the early emails do not necessarily come up at all.

 

Although Shoosmiths sent two identical versions of what they wanted to the court, with different tags on each, it is only fair to record that the Court clerks picked up on this and notified Shoosmiths.

 

Then it was a case of: “Oh gosh, how did that happen? Frightfully sorry, here is Mr Ravenscroft’s version” – but though this can be read from the email string behind the final triumphant notification to Leigh that the Master preferred their version, it is impossible to see what they sent the second time, as Leigh’s version.

 

Even if they had sent the correct one of course, it would have been minus the explanation that his was a cut and paste from the Master’s own words in the judgment. It is possible, but surely unlikely, that had he been aware of that, the Master would still have preferred Shoosmiths wording to his own.

 

What is always disturbing, however innocent it may be, is the first name familiarity between the CaRT lawyers and the clerks – this particular string was all “Dear Lucy” [shoosmiths]; “Dear Jo” [the court clerk]. This does not happen just with Shoosmiths mind you, I am seeing the same thing with Hounslow Council’s lawyers communicating with the court without copying me in [which I only find out when a string gets inadvertently sent on].

 

 

 

 

Exactly what I found. And emails I sent to the Judge were forwarded to 'Dear Sian', but communications between Shoosmiths and the Judge - which there will have been - were not sent to me. Plus, requested transcripts 'disappeared' and transcripts were incomplete and other 'odd' things occurred.

 

When I requested a meeting with the Court Manager about my concerns had no reply until I phoned her directly when my request was denied.

 

Absolutely no doubt there is collusion between solicitors and court staff and between opposing solicitors and barristers.

 

They're the 'officers', we're just the 'cannon fodder ' in the trenches ( or 'low-life' weirdos who live on boats).

 

Shoosmiths stoke this by their routine employment of character assassination. Where the case involves a male on one side and women on the other the male is, invariably,made out to be dangerous and violent. Routine, formulaic, everyday abuse of the legal process.

 

What is,of course, totally irrelevant is that the majority of these people, and the majority of Shoosmiths solicitors (and the majority of BW/CRT enforcement team) are women. I just mention this as an interesting fact.

[pearlygeoff]

CHEWBACKA

 

That's very interesting; unfortunately too late now. Yet another way they can confuse people - most of us - who are not regular, computer literate compter users.

 

Most people living on boats don't have a computer - maybe some now have smart phones - so what hope have they got. They also don't have a permanent or reliable address.

 

People who like fox hunting and can't do it any more should get a job with CRT enforcement.

 

The Gentry and their sycophants riding roughshod over the legal process in pursuit of their hapless and defenceless quarry.

Edited October 6, 2016 by pearlygeoff

[Mike Todd]

 

Exactly what I found. And emails I sent to the Judge were forwarded to 'Dear Sian', but communications between Shoosmiths and the Judge - which there will have been - were not sent to me. Plus, requested transcripts 'disappeared' and transcripts were incomplete and other 'odd' things occurred.

 

When I requested a meeting with the Court Manager about my concerns had no reply until I phoned her directly when my request was denied.

 

Absolutely no doubt there is collusion between solicitors and court staff and between opposing solicitors and barristers.

 

They're the 'officers', we're just the 'cannon fodder ' in the trenches ( or 'low-life' weirdos who live on boats).

 

Shoosmiths stoke this by their routine employment of character assassination. Where the case involves a male on one side and women on the other the male is, invariably,made out to be dangerous and violent. Routine, formulaic, everyday abuse of the legal process.

 

What is,of course, totally irrelevant is that the majority of these people, and the majority of Shoosmiths solicitors (and the majority of BW/CRT enforcement team) are women. I just mention this as an interesting fact.

Communication between lawyers for opposing litigants is not uncommon. It should be 'without prejudice' (hence the significance in, I think, another case) which allows some negotiation perhaps along the lines of "If my client agreed to xxx, would client agree to yyy and would we have a settlement?" This ultimately avoids court time and also keeps the process of negotiation somewhat under control. If there is no agreement then nothing that is 'offered' in the process can be used as evidence of an admission. Can be important in determining liability for costs, I believe.

 

Once a case reaches court there is not much scope for trying out bargains. Done within the rules this can be 'a good thing' - surely?

[pearlygeoff]

Communication between lawyers for opposing litigants is not uncommon. It should be 'without prejudice' (hence the significance in, I think, another case) which allows some negotiation perhaps along the lines of "If my client agreed to xxx, would client agree to yyy and would we have a settlement?" This ultimately avoids court time and also keeps the process of negotiation somewhat under control. If there is no agreement then nothing that is 'offered' in the process can be used as evidence of an admission. Can be important in determining liability for costs, I believe.

 

Once a case reaches court there is not much scope for trying out bargains. Done within the rules this can be 'a good thing' - surely?

 

 

But you've no idea what these communications entail. And the barrister is talking to the other barrister and not to you, nor you to him.

 

In an employment tribunal I had a barrister retained by a solicitor. I had never met him until the day of the tribunal. The first thing he said to me was, 'I've spoken to the other side and we'll go for a 50/50 settlement then, with any luck, we'll be finished by lunchtime.' He then said, 'Why are you bothering with this? Why don't you just get on with your life?'.

 

In the hearing, where I was the claimant, he proceeded to 'defend' me saying, 'My client is very sorry for what he's done etc. etc.' I.e. the formulaic defence for the ne'erdo well client.

 

I subsequently won the case but was held to be 50% responsible because of my 'attitude'. I.e. I had had the audacity to take a big American company to a tribunal.

 

That was my first experience of the justice system and I vowed never to be an employee again.

 

With regard to communication between the legal representatives, how do you know what is useful communication and what is collusion and what is collaboration?

 

You don't.

[NigelMoore]

 

Well, that's a different version of events than the one you put forward in your earlier post - that Shoosmiths were being "clever" by sending the court two identical versions, being of their wording.

 

It might be helpful if you can reveal why you know what was in both versions that were sent to the Court by Shoosmiths first time round, but that it's impossible to know what was in the second version that was sent second time round.

 

That is simple enough – Shoosmiths copied Leigh in to what they initially sent to the court. Leigh later [too much later] forwarded that email to me, which naturally came with the attachments. Opening both – the one marked as CaRT’s and the other marked as Leigh’s – it could be seen that they were identical.

 

Shoosmiths had already, it is also fair to note, asked Leigh to respond to their revision, but as he had not replied by the time due for them to send it in, they had sent “both” versions. These, as the Master later observed, were the same. Perhaps, if we had had the chance to engage with Shoosmiths over this beforehand, they might have agreed with a further revision, but in fairness to them, they had received no response at all; Leigh had either not read his emails that day or had not realised what they were.

 

I simply do not know what ‘Lucy’ sent to the court once ‘Jo’ informed her that the two “different” versions were in fact identical, because although – oddly - Shoosmiths DID copy me in to an email sending Leigh a copy of the Sealed Order, there was another such missive sent only to Leigh, which had the intervening correspondence with the court tagged on.

 

That email [which he forwarded on to me] was to show Leigh that “Jo” had specifically remarked that the Shoosmiths version was preferred, and that “The Master does not agree to the Claimant's version of the order.” As I have said already, it is possible that the Master found the Claimant’s [amended] version preferable for various reasons argued for by Mr Stoner – but to “not agree” with his own wording?! Regardless, as I also said, he was not copied in to Leigh’s explanation, so may not have realised that it was his own wording.

 

When I had seen the forwarded emails to the court and suggested it, Leigh forwarded to the court his original email to Shoosmiths, with both his version and explanation, but that was some hours later on the last day, when everybody had probably gone home.

 

The email string at the head of which Shoosmiths had sent a brief note to Leigh, highlighting the Master’s agreement with their version, included none of the attachments to those intervening emails, so that is why I cannot know what they were.

 

‘Clever’? Yes, because I do not believe that it was an innocent mistake to send identical versions with different descriptions; it was the sort of thing that the Master might have thought indicated full agreement, so was worth a shot. Leigh on his own would not have realised either, and did not.

 

That being my opinion after years of experience with this firm and their tactics, I know there is room for doubt as to what they later sent. Certainly, they did not send on Leigh’s explanation of his wording, only their own argumentation – so it was a one-sided input regardless.

 

An alternative explanation for the original undoubted duplication under different appellations could be incompetence, but that will never be something I would accuse them of.

 

The other thing is, that Leigh had sent his suggested revision to Shoosmiths, with explanation, on the previous Thursday 22 September. At the latest, Shoosmiths ought to have responded by close of play Friday 23rd, but they waited until the afternoon of Tuesday 27th to send a version amended partly as per Leigh's suggestion and inviting his counter response - a few hours only, before sending off their material to the court.

 

Lucy and Jo finished sorting things out to their satisfaction just after midday Wednesday 28th; It was hours later before I was knew what had been sent and tried to help Leigh fix things. The Order was sealed and sent to Shoosmiths first thing the following morning, and emailed to us later the same day.

 

Even keeping on the ball with emails, it would have been very tight attempting to negotiate the terms a few short hours before the deadline! Easy for professionals no doubt.

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by NigelMoore

[NigelMoore]

I should perhaps emphasise what I said before – that this was not such a big deal; as I said to Leigh, the Order is still most emphatically in his favour; it entirely quashed all the argument against his application, and has granted everything he wanted with costs in his favour besides, to be counted as costs in the case.

The worst of the contentious wording was removed, and the remainder is, as I said, ‘nit-picking’ – it is just that it is a good illustration of the lengths CaRT will go to, in trying to ameliorate the taste of defeat, and it is a good illustration of the tactical manoeuvring employed by their representatives.

[Geo]

 

 

But you've no idea what these communications entail. And the barrister is talking to the other barrister and not to you, nor you to him.

 

In an employment tribunal I had a barrister retained by a solicitor. I had never met him until the day of the tribunal. The first thing he said to me was, 'I've spoken to the other side and we'll go for a 50/50 settlement then, with any luck, we'll be finished by lunchtime.' He then said, 'Why are you bothering with this? Why don't you just get on with your life?'.

 

In the hearing, where I was the claimant, he proceeded to 'defend' me saying, 'My client is very sorry for what he's done etc. etc.' I.e. the formulaic defence for the ne'erdo well client.

 

I subsequently won the case but was held to be 50% responsible because of my 'attitude'. I.e. I had had the audacity to take a big American company to a tribunal.

 

That was my first experience of the justice system and I vowed never to be an employee again.

 

With regard to communication between the legal representatives, how do you know what is useful communication and what is collusion and what is collaboration?

 

You don't.

 

There is no reason why you should not know everything that passes between them, you instruct your legal team copies of everything to you. Costs a bit more but you are fully in the link. Regarding the barrister I would have instructed him and having seen his brief before would have known the basis of which he was acting, would have pointed him in the right direction. I know it takes courage but you have to remember lawyers are first and foremost advisers and there to represent what you want put to a court etc. They will not quite rightly lie but they will tell the truth. Frankly if a barrister had not met with me before the case I would not use them and coming up with the remark we can be done with this by lunchtime I would have dumped him/her.

[pearlygeoff]

 

There is no reason why you should not know everything that passes between them, you instruct your legal team copies of everything to you. Costs a bit more but you are fully in the link. Regarding the barrister I would have instructed him and having seen his brief before would have known the basis of which he was acting, would have pointed him in the right direction. I know it takes courage but you have to remember lawyers are first and foremost advisers and there to represent what you want put to a court etc. They will not quite rightly lie but they will tell the truth. Frankly if a barrister had not met with me before the case I would not use them and coming up with the remark we can be done with this by lunchtime I would have dumped him/her.

 

 

When it's the first time you are dealing with the legal system none of this applies. You trust the solicitor to do the right thing and keep you informed.

 

I didn't see the need for a barrister but I got the impression he wanted to make contact with the barrister, using my case, for future benefit. (That happened in my CRT case. Why would a solicitor instruct a barrister when it is intended to offer no defence?)

 

The statement I wrote for the solicitor was passed to the barrister as his brief. The barrister was in London I was in Banbury. I probably wouldn't have been able to contact him direct if I wanted to. I don't expect to have to point the barrister in the right direction. In that case I might as well do the case myself. (I didn't because it was being financed by the Staff Association of the firm).

 

I have the courage to challenge them which I have done ever since. As for not lying, they will lie and encourage you to lie.

 

It's, apparently, quite usual to not meet the barrister until the day of the hearing.

 

I was so taken aback by his comments I didn't know what to do. I told him I didn't agree to that and would have expressed my concerns to my solicitor.

 

This was in 1986; I've learned a lot since then. That's how we learn; we get 'shafted' by the professionals.

 

Since then I have had fierce arguments immediately prior to hearings and threatened to sack a barrister in court if she didn't do as I say. That's why a different barrister was instructed and the legal aid stipulated I could not contact him directly.

 

Those of us 'lay people'who find ourselves involved in legal dispute are not 'experts' on the law and the process and the 'dirty tricks', we are 'victims'.

 

As for knowing everything that passes between the solicitor and the barrister; you only know what they want you to know.

 

I respect your comments but I think they're a bit naive. The legal profession is in the very good position of being able to manipulate the legal process to their own benefit. They are a law unto themselves and pursue their own interests on the backs of their clients - rather like the investment banks. In fact, rather like 'professional people' in general. They're not in it for the public good.

 

Have you read my site? Canal and river tyranny.

[NigelMoore]

When it's the first time you are dealing with the legal system none of this applies. You trust the solicitor to do the right thing and keep you informed.

 

 

This is, of course, the tragedy with most of us. It still feels to me, after all these years, that I am perpetually playing "catch up" with procedural rules and protocols. I long since gave up on any professional help, because my initial court experiences with professional help were, if anything, worse than Geoff's.

 

For all that, I know that the system in this country has improved out of sight over the centuries; having read histories of court entanglements from even less than a century ago, I am enormously grateful to be living in these times - but we have only improved because little people occasionally stood up to the big boys and made a public spectacle of themselves.

[Geo]

 

 

When it's the first time you are dealing with the legal system none of this applies. You trust the solicitor to do the right thing and keep you informed.

 

I didn't see the need for a barrister but I got the impression he wanted to make contact with the barrister, using my case, for future benefit. (That happened in my CRT case. Why would a solicitor instruct a barrister when it is intended to offer no defence?)

 

The statement I wrote for the solicitor was passed to the barrister as his brief. The barrister was in London I was in Banbury. I probably wouldn't have been able to contact him direct if I wanted to. I don't expect to have to point the barrister in the right direction. In that case I might as well do the case myself. (I didn't because it was being financed by the Staff Association of the firm).

 

I have the courage to challenge them which I have done ever since. As for not lying, they will lie and encourage you to lie.

 

It's, apparently, quite usual to not meet the barrister until the day of the hearing.

 

I was so taken aback by his comments I didn't know what to do. I told him I didn't agree to that and would have expressed my concerns to my solicitor.

 

This was in 1986; I've learned a lot since then. That's how we learn; we get 'shafted' by the professionals.

 

Since then I have had fierce arguments immediately prior to hearings and threatened to sack a barrister in court if she didn't do as I say. That's why a different barrister was instructed and the legal aid stipulated I could not contact him directly.

 

Those of us 'lay people'who find ourselves involved in legal dispute are not 'experts' on the law and the process and the 'dirty tricks', we are 'victims'.

 

As for knowing everything that passes between the solicitor and the barrister; you only know what they want you to know.

 

I respect your comments but I think they're a bit naive. The legal profession is in the very good position of being able to manipulate the legal process to their own benefit. They are a law unto themselves and pursue their own interests on the backs of their clients - rather like the investment banks. In fact, rather like 'professional people' in general. They're not in it for the public good.

 

Have you read my site? Canal and river tyranny.

 

I can appreciate what you are saying. Maybe I have been luck and had good professionals. I have never gone to court where I have not met the barrister and discussed the case fully and have always been represented in the way I wanted. However things have changed now with public access barristers, who cut out the solicitors But there will always I think be sharks

 

Most of the cases I have been involved with in recent years have been as litigant in person, using a legal exec as a consultant to write the forms etc. So far not lost a case, but then I only take those on where I believe I can win, If I have doubt I walk away.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Geo

[NigelMoore]

 

I only take those on where I believe I can win, If I have doubt I walk away.

 

Not a choice open to those faced with a section 8 – rightly or wrongly.

[Geo]

 

Not a choice open to those faced with a section 8 – rightly or wrongly.

 

Oh I don't disagree, mind you I have been put in a position where I had to decide court or quietly back away.

 

I wonder sometimes if Sec 8s could have been avoided if people really wanted to. Yes I agree CRT have to be fought, but by those who know the rules and are able to put the case to the court.

 

Not likely to happen to me as my boats like the salty

[MtB]

 

Not a choice open to those faced with a section 8 – rightly or wrongly.

 

 

Surely Section 8s are only issued after a long sequence of correspondence setting out the case. Plenty of opportunity for the victim to decide whether they want to fight CRT or cave in in advance of the S8 surely?

[NigelMoore]

 

Oh I don't disagree, mind you I have been put in a position where I had to decide court or quietly back away.

 

I wonder sometimes if Sec 8s could have been avoided if people really wanted to. Yes I agree CRT have to be fought, but by those who know the rules and are able to put the case to the court.

 

Not likely to happen to me as my boats like the salty

 

Lucky you, Geo [and that is a genuine observation; not intended in any snide way].

 

The raw fact is that while the vast majority of boaters will never fall foul of CaRT, or even come within the radar of their enforcement team, there are the rare occasions when, with the best will in the world and no matter what is done to abide by more than the law or even BW/CaRT demands, boaters can find themselves in a position where they are an impediment to some goal the authority is pursuing – and then, the only choice is not to “quietly back away” because they will not allow that; the choice is to lose everything or fight.

 

If that sounds medieval, it is; abuse of power has never gone away, and never will while human nature prevails within institutions granted authority over us.

 

English law has grown in order to protect the common man in such situations, but that is not an easy tool to wield.

 

[NigelMoore]

 

 

Surely Section 8s are only issued after a long sequence of correspondence setting out the case. Plenty of opportunity for the victim to decide whether they want to fight CRT or cave in in advance of the S8 surely?

 

That is how it is supposed to work MtB, and, in live-aboard cases, is true for the majority.

 

You surely cannot have forgotten, however, that in my case half a dozen boats were s.8’d with no warning whatsoever, and that we were pursued for years even though I had swiftly thereafter paid for licences for several of those boats.

 

Not once throughout the 6 years they did their damndest to get rid of me, could they offer any rationale whatsoever for that desire, that would justify such extreme measures in the interests of good management of the system.

 

This was all in pursuit, to begin with, of pecuniary advantage in league with adjacent land developers. When the developers backed off, the original rationale was gone, but personal nastiness at the very top levels of the executive insisted on carrying through regardless.

 

Mine is not an isolated instance; the only unique element was the single-handed fight against them. Not that far away in the East End, boaters were evicted in pursuit of clearing boats from the waterways for developing the area ready for the 2012 Olympics. The only reason BW came a cropper in that instance also, was that the boaters just happened to be tenants of Her Majesty, and the Crown Estates took a grim view of being fraudulently deprived of their title and income.

 

My personal view of s.8 is that it has no application at all, where the boat owners are known and traceable, unless they have openly flouted statutory prohibition against obstruction of the waterways.

 

There has been no sound justification "in my opinion" for evicting any of the high-profile cases over the last few years. Not even in any of the cases listed on the CaRT website, has such an action been justified as an effective or just replacement for the mandated procedures specified for the relevant offence.

 

[NigelMoore]

I would support CRT's efforts to prevent boats with a home mooring from plonking themselves on a visitor mooring for very long periods. It is selfish behaviour and if everyone did it, actually using the waterways for navigation would become very difficult especially on rivers. If they don't actually have the legal power to do this, I hope they acquire it soon.

 

They do already “have the power to do this”, &/or to remedy the situation where it arises. All it needs is people on the ’beat’ and the institutional will to practice it. This used to be the case, and BW had court approval for the remedy, but neither pre-condition any longer exists. That is, of course, a situation that a decent CEO could do something about.

 

Of course, another impediment is that the solution does not require any involvement of the legal department personnel . . .

[NigelMoore]

Relentless and obstinate - definitely! The only question is whether that was intended as compliment or criticism. I sure if it were directed at a defending barrister who had just won a case it would be taken as a compliment.

 

It was most definitely intended as criticism. This phrase as quoted, was in fact part of a supplemental judgment. In the original draft version of his main judgment, Hildyard J had described me as being “stubborn and relentless, and sometimes, no doubt, difficult to deal with; he has obviously tried their patience.”

 

I objected to the latter bit, while accepting the “stubborn and relentless” characterisation as something I could live with. The judge accepted that, but after several more versions added in instead, the paragraphs about being “cavalier” over poor BW’s costs. Obviously, I would have been better off keeping schtum! It did not matter in the long run, because his judgment on costs was later overturned – but the criticisms remain, and are trotted out whenever Mr Stoner gets the opportunity.

 

He usually quotes the latter version, as I say, from the supplemental judgment, where the judge says: “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 . . . in my main judgment I characterised his approach as being somewhat relentless and obstinate.” He summed up his pros and cons in that section of the judgment by awarding 25% costs to BW, precisely because although BW had behaved badly, so had I with my relentless obstinacy in defending my rights at the expense of those denying them.

 

Of course they owe me now, but even with the boot on the other foot respecting costs, these online articles will have branded me forever, while the criticisms of BW/CaRT are lost in the undergrowth of obscure scribd sites and online forums! Never mind - as I told the judge, I can live with that.

 

I couldn't help noticing today that in Birmingham Shoosmiths and the Legal Aid Agency share the same building. I couldn't help but give a wry smile.

 

And if you realised that Shoosmiths share the same building in Milton Keynes with CaRT’s Head Office?

 

That must save a mountain of postage.