CRT v Andy Wingfield Update

[NigelMoore]

from what you have posted you have picked the bones out of it quite effectively already.

 

Thanks, but I do not expect anyone to take my comments as an accurate analysis of something which they cannot read for themselves. Hence uploading core documentation for people’s own perusal. Besides, some might have a different or fresh view from which I could learn, or be able to point out errors that I have made which are better discovered early.

[tidal]

Valid points

 

I can only remember disagreeing with you once though
And that was only down to a minor misread on my part

[nicknorman]

Thanks Nigel. Professionals.... Huh!

 

Would I be right in thinking that the issues relating to Andy are virtually the same as those relating to Tony? My point being that from a personal point of view Andy may well have lost (due to his incompetent representation) but the opportunity to have the points properly addressed by a court may still occur if CRT persist in their case against Tony.

[NigelMoore]

Would I be right in thinking that the issues relating to Andy are virtually the same as those relating to Tony? My point being that from a personal point of view Andy may well have lost (due to his incompetent representation) but the opportunity to have the points properly addressed by a court may still occur if CRT persist in their case against Tony.

 

Yes, they are the same issues – with this difference: Andy had both a current Pleasure Boat Certificate and paid-up CaRT home mooring when CaRT revoked his PBC and s.8’d him, for allegedly overstaying on private non-towpath moorings [i.e. not cruising according to their CC guidelines].

 

Worse, so far as I know, they are still hanging on to the ‘licence’ fees Andy paid, both for the revoked portion and the next year’s automatic payment! They should at the very least repay the portion relating to the time since he left ‘their’ waterways.

 

Some but not all of these issues would be addressed if the Courts deny CaRT's application to strike out the Ravenscroft case, and would certainly be determined if they then pursued Tony. It is beyond me why they seem determined to avoid fighting the Ravenscroft issues if they are resolved to fight Tony anyway.

 

[NigelMoore]

Confirmation of Legal Aid cover for today's hearing was received at 5pm last night, which is something of a relief - very last minute!

[NigelMoore]

Andy reports that the hearing went as I expected – permission to appeal refused - but no costs awarded. I did ask what his Counsel had to say about it, but the answer was couched in a vocabulary I am loathe to deploy here.

 

He will have to await belated satisfaction arising from either the Ravenscroft case or any new Dunkley initiative.

[raymondh]

Nigel,

Can you please advise in simple terms what the net outcome is from this CaRT v Dunkley saga

 

Regards Ray

[NigelMoore]

Nigel,

Can you please advise in simple terms what the net outcome is from this CaRT v Dunkley saga

 

Regards Ray

The CaRT v Dunkley saga has yet to kick off; the net outcome of the CaRT v Wingfield saga is that Andy cannot appeal against his banishment from CaRT's waterways.

 

Of course, he is happy where he is, and should he wish - in a few years perhaps - to revisit CaRT waterways he need only apply for a new 'relevant consent' and provided he meets the statutory criteria, CaRT will have to give him one.

 

CaRT have lost a customer who was paying them both 'licence' fees and mooring fees; it has cost them at least an irrecoverable £50k plus to achieve that diminution of income, and yet they will be unable to deny him a new licence in future should he wish one.

[Stilllearning]

The CaRT v Dunkley saga has yet to kick off; the net outcome of the CaRT v Wingfield saga is that Andy cannot appeal against his banishment from CaRT's waterways.

Of course, he is happy where he is, and should he wish - in a few years perhaps - to revisit CaRT waterways he need only apply for a new 'relevant consent' and provided he meets the statutory criteria, CaRT will have to give him one.

CaRT have lost a customer who was paying them both 'licence' fees and mooring fees; it has cost them at least an irrecoverable £50k plus to achieve that diminution of income, and yet they will be unable to deny him a new licence in future should he wish one.

Sometimes one is tempted to drop a line to the Rotten Boroughs, or another part, of Private Eye, to see if they would like to highlight this sort of financial stupidity.

[NigelMoore]

Mobile madness

Edited March 5, 2016 by NigelMoore

[Tony Dunkley]

The CaRT v Dunkley saga has yet to kick off; the net outcome of the CaRT v Wingfield saga is that Andy cannot appeal against his banishment from CaRT's waterways.

 

Of course, he is happy where he is, and should he wish - in a few years perhaps - to revisit CaRT waterways he need only apply for a new 'relevant consent' and provided he meets the statutory criteria, CaRT will have to give him one.

 

CaRT have lost a customer who was paying them both 'licence' fees and mooring fees; it has cost them at least an irrecoverable £50k plus to achieve that diminution of income, and yet they will be unable to deny him a new licence in future should he wish one.

 

When I last spoke with Andy he was very pleased to be off C&RT waters and out of their jurisdiction, but he didn't rule out a return to the Nottingham area at some future date. With this in mind, and for the benefit of others either in, or likely to be in, the same situation as Andy, I have secured some additional mooring rights close to my own mooring at Barton-in-Fabis on the Trent, a short distance upriver from Nottingham.

These moorings are, as of now, available for periods of up to 12 months, on private land not subject to any form of C&RT control, and as they are located on a PRN river, outwith the scope of the loosely and incorrectly worded Orders that C&RT obtain from County Courts.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Tony Dunkley]

I think perhaps the wording :~ " located on a PRN river, outwith the scope of the loosely and incorrectly worded Orders that C&RT obtain from County Courts." ~ in the last sentence of Post #1161 deserves a little more by way of explanation.

 

Every one of the Orders that C&RT hoodwink the County Courts into making pursuant to their standard Declaration and Injunction Applications [Claims] in respect of Section 8'd boats contains the following wording :~

 

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT :

 

1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

2) The Defendant be forbidden, after [ time and date] ( whether by himself or by instructing or encouraging any other person) without the prior consent of the Claimant;

 

a} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

b} From navigating, mooring and/or securing the boat [ boat name and Index No.] on any part of any of the canals or inland waterways controlled by the Claimant . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

Whilst it is arguable that the Court may or may not have the authority and power to make such an Order in respect of the canals where the PRN was extinguished by the 1968 Transport Act, and navigation now requires the consent of the navigation authority [C&RT], it is beyond any doubt that no Court has the authority or power to rescind the common law right of navigation in respect of any vessel or individual on the scheduled PRN river navigations under C&RT control, which in effect is precisely what these Orders do.

C&RT, as did BW before them, ask for an Order [injunction] in the terms quoted above in the Details of Claim section of the CPR Part 8 Claim Form filed with the Court , and the Courts, thus far, have duly obliged them with Orders that they have no power to make.

The wording of 2)b} in all of C&RT's Court Orders is general and all-encompassing, when it should be specific and restricted to only C&RT's canals where the PRN no longer exists.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[WotEver]

So why has no-one yet offered that counter-argument to the County Court when C&RT have made their application?

 

Or have they, and had it dismissed?

 

Tony

[Tony Dunkley]

So why has no-one yet offered that counter-argument to the County Court when C&RT have made their application?

 

Or have they, and had it dismissed?

 

Tony

 

I can't speak for others, so I can't answer that, and to the best of my knowledge the matter hasn't been raised as yet.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[NigelMoore]

So why has no-one yet offered that counter-argument to the County Court when C&RT have made their application?

 

Or have they, and had it dismissed?

 

The argument was included in paragraphs 13 & 14 of the draft Wingfield Defence as amended by myself, in the version I sent to his legal team for consideration.

 

It was not presented to the court because his legal team, while expressing themselves [pre-hearing] grateful for my assistance, considered that there would be time enough to pay attention to it post what they believed would be a mere directions hearing.

 

It turned out that it was of course NOT a case management hearing but the full trial - and because they had filed no Acknowledgement of Service in the initial stages, would not have been considered anyway - so no, the argument has not been presented to any court for determination, despite my best endeavours.

 

In fairness, despite the recriminatory atmosphere following my filing a Statement for Andy via Tony at the last minute [in their eyes an unforgivable offence], in discussion post trial we discussed this aspect of the injunction terms, and they were receptive; too late for Andy of course.

 

This issue does not enter the Ravenscroft Claim, because with him they had already seised the boat sans Court Order or Injunction. If they go ahead with pursuing Tony, that will be the first time it is brought before the Court in these terms - although the substantial elements of the argument arose in my own case, such that even though Hildyard J approved the issue of s.8, he acknowledged that the boat was still entitled to cruise the tidal and non-tidal BW waterways as per its licence and the PRN [a bizzarely confused judgment I am afraid, but in that aspect a valuable precedent for Tony to cite].

[NigelMoore]

The unique terms of the Order I received from Hildyard J [later overturned of course], in contrast to the usual Order as quoted by Tony, was as follows:

“That Mr Moore be required to move the vessel ‘Gilgie’ from the waterways managed by British Waterways on or before 16th May 2012, including the tidal element of the Grand Union Canal between Bax’s Mill/The Boatman’s Institute and the junction of the Grand Union Canal with the River Thames, save in so far as Mr Moore exercises public rights of navigation over the said tidal stretch and/or cruises British Waterways managed inland waterways in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence issued in respect of the vessel ‘Gilgie’ . . .” [my bold]

 

It remains - to the extent of my knowledge - the only s.8 case and judgment against a licensed [unrevoked] boat on the grounds that a particular mooring was not approved by them for that particular boat.

[bassplayer]

Sorry but edited to say that playing the same game as idiots isn't the way forward.

 

The law is an ass (a good lawyer friend years ago taught me that and why it is an ass). Just be honest, use plain language which everyone will understand and try to do the right thing.

 

What could possibly go wrong?

Edited March 6, 2016 by bassplayer

[NigelMoore]

Sorry but edited to say that playing the same game as idiots isn't the way forward.

 

The law is an ass (a good lawyer friend years ago taught me that and why it is an ass). Just be honest, use plain language which everyone will understand and try to do the right thing.

 

What could possibly go wrong?

What can go wrong for the honest plain speaker is in the hands of the ass-handlers.

[bassplayer]

What can go wrong for the honest plain speaker is in the hands of the ass-handlers.

Sounds more like a threat to me. So where are you coming from Nigel?

[NigelMoore]

Sounds more like a threat to me. So where are you coming from Nigel?

Threat from whom?

 

I am coming from the side of the honest plain speakers, seeking to do the right thing - I simply recognise and acknowledge the odds.

Edited March 6, 2016 by NigelMoore

[bassplayer]

I simply recognise and acknowledge the odds.

What odds?

[Loafer]

Well I keep reading this thread out of curiosity for any judgements. I would love to know the layman terms for what exactly happened to all those aforementioned boaters who have been Shoosmithed or otherwise disadvantaged by CRT.

 

Sadly I'm too thick to understand legalese, or contractese, so I like it to be translated into ME speak.

 

If anyone could translate most of the stuff that has been on here for the last 59 pages, into ME speak, I'd then be in a better position to allocate my support!

[NigelMoore]

What odds?

 

Are we misunderstanding each other/talking at cross-purposes?

 

You said ‘the law is an ass’ [which I do not completely agree with, for all that I understand the basis of the sentiment], then proceeded to suggest that nothing can go wrong if you speak plainly and do the right thing.

 

I understood you to mean that such people would never fall within the clutches of ‘the ass’, and/or that if involved regardless, clear speaking from an innocent would ensure no deleterious results.

 

Neither is, of course correct, despite being perhaps a valid generalisation [and it is a good policy to follow anyway].

 

My response addressed the latter rather than the former possible meaning, and sought to highlight that one’s fate inevitably rests in the hands of the administrators of the law; justice is not always done no matter how innocent and clear-speaking you are, and all litigation is a ‘two-up’ game.

 

Worse, when you are up against government and quasi-government authorities, the courts will always possess a largely unacknowledged bias* against you/in favour of the authority, so to answer your last - the odds for your success in that situation are not good.

 

* By way of emphasis, bear in mind that CaRT will be fighting in the Appeal Court shortly, for them to be recognised as an authority whose probity ought not to be questioned by the Courts when their decisions are challenged. When any Human Rights issues are raised, CaRT want the Courts to automatically assume the proportionality of their decisions. Sadly, I am not confident that the boating public's case rests in sufficiently competent hands, although I do not know who will act as Counsel.

 

[BMC problems]

By way of emphasis, bear in mind that CaRT will be fighting in the Appeal Court shortly, for them to be recognised as an authority whose probity ought not to be questioned by the Courts when their decisions are challenged. When any Human Rights issues are raised, CaRT want the Courts to automatically assume the proportionality of their decisions. Sadly, I am not confident that the boating public's case rests in sufficiently competent hands, although I do not know who will act as Counsel.

 

 

Do you have a bit more information on this please Nigel?

 

It seems like a very large step. I am puzzled that I have heard nothing anywhere else.

 

What are they appealing?

[bassplayer]

Are we misunderstanding each other/talking at cross-purposes?

You said ‘the law is an ass’ [which I do not completely agree with, for all that I understand the basis of the sentiment], then proceeded to suggest that nothing can go wrong if you speak plainly and do the right thing.

I understood you to mean that such people would never fall within the clutches of ‘the ass’, and/or that if involved regardless, clear speaking from an innocent would ensure no deleterious results.

Neither is, of course correct, despite being perhaps a valid generalisation [and it is a good policy to follow anyway].

My response addressed the latter rather than the former possible meaning, and sought to highlight that one’s fate inevitably rests in the hands of the administrators of the law; justice is not always done no matter how innocent and clear-speaking you are, and all litigation is a ‘two-up’ game.

Worse, when you are up against government and quasi-government authorities, the courts will always possess a largely unacknowledged bias* against you/in favour of the authority, so to answer your last - the odds for your success in that situation are not good.

* By way of emphasis, bear in mind that CaRT will be fighting in the Appeal Court shortly, for them to be recognised as an authority whose probity ought not to be questioned by the Courts when their decisions are challenged. When any Human Rights issues are raised, CaRT want the Courts to automatically assume the proportionality of their decisions. Sadly, I am not confident that the boating public's case rests in sufficiently competent hands, although I do not know who will act as Counsel.

 

Maybe my lack of trust in our legal system is the problem then. I believe the law system in this country has always been set up in such a way to intimidate the layman. It's prone to bias from 'other' sources and how much money you can throw at a case. Being realistic though, we have to have some system so maybe better the devil we know.

 

I can't help thinking that the media is a better place to capture the public's imagination and make a difference. That's where rally's and protests can help focus the minds of those who think they can bully individuals into submission through legal twaddle.

 

Good luck though.