CRT v Andy Wingfield Update

[Alan de Enfield]

Well done - a result (of sorts)

 

Will wait with baited breath for the details.

[Phil.]

Oooh, sounds exciting.

[Tony Dunkley]

Well done - a result (of sorts)

 

Will wait with baited breath for the details.

 

Oooh, sounds exciting.

 

I have to admit, it was, in truth, none of my doing, but simply a series of minor occurrences, starting with me being unable to attend the hearing due to some very messy and anti-social side-effects from the medication that I'm on at the moment, then progressing with what appears to be a breakdown in communications with the Court by Shoosmiths which culminated in them not attending the hearing either.

 

It's worthy of mention, and a somewhat happy coincidence, that the Judge who made the strike out Order on Wednesday was the same Judge who sat over Andy Wingfield's 2nd Trial in Nottingham last year.

 

 

Edited June 3, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[NigelMoore]

 

. . . appears to be a breakdown in communications with the Court by Shoosmiths which culminated in them not attending the hearing either.

Now that IS interesting! They are too professional for that to be a simple slip up. Did they know you would not be attending?

 

It raises the possibility that they saw a way to have the case dropped with minimal kick-back.

 

Subsequent actions will reveal whether that was the motivation - if they apply for reinstatement then that would indicate that they simply messed up; if they do not, then it would suggest that they have been a bit clever.

[NigelMoore]

it would suggest that they have been a bit clever.

 

Gave them too much credit . . .

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Gave them too much credit . . .

 

And you think that because ............ ?

[NigelMoore]

Because Shoosmiths had done their best to have the hearing adjourned, and thought that not attending on the day would simply serve to save costs, even though they had received no word from the court.

They have applied to have the case reinstated with a new hearing date for the CMC. A lost opportunity - it would have been sensible [on financial grounds if no other] to have awaited a precedent decision on the issues, which they have already committed to arguing in the High Court in Leigh's case. Why spend thousands of pounds on multiple County Court judgments giving rise to no precedent decisions, when just the one High Court case will settle the matter?

 

They specifically acknowledged this at the last CMC in Leigh's case, so it makes no sense to CaRT to act in disregard of their own argument. That does not apply to Shoosmiths of course, who would be doubtless saddened to pass up the bread and butter cases.

[PaulG]

Because Shoosmiths had done their best to have the hearing adjourned, and thought that not attending on the day would simply serve to save costs, even though they had received no word from the court.

 

They have applied to have the case reinstated with a new hearing date for the CMC. A lost opportunity - it would have been sensible [on financial grounds if no other] to have awaited a precedent decision on the issues, which they have already committed to arguing in the High Court in Leigh's case. Why spend thousands of pounds on multiple County Court judgments giving rise to no precedent decisions, when just the one High Court case will settle the matter?

 

They specifically acknowledged this at the last CMC in Leigh's case, so it makes no sense to CaRT to act in disregard of their own argument. That does not apply to Shoosmiths of course, who would be doubtless saddened to pass up the bread and butter cases.

 

To exert pressure on certain individuals to throw in the towel?

[NigelMoore]

To exert pressure on certain individuals to throw in the towel?

Very probably - but it is still a foolish gamble with our money. Supposing they won in e.g. Tony's case and he had to fork out for a pbc in arrears on top of costs etc - this would only be safe if they won with Leigh.

 

If they went on to lose the High Court case, and it was established that their demand for Tony et al to pay to stay on the prn was the criminal offence it is, then they would be facing civil action for refund of those sums and penalties at the least - with interest.

 

The situation would be the same as it was on the river Brent; boaters are STILL discovering that they are entitled to refund of wrongly extorted licence fees - had BW not wanted so badly to make an issue over the claimed legitimacy of licence demands there, the legal situation would not have become confirmed knowledge amongst so many, to CaRT's financial detriment.

 

Even without that scenario it makes little sense in going through with court threats at such cost under these specific circumstances; I would have thought ample fear of consequences had already been engendered amongst CaRT's clientele without further examples, but maybe I am wrong.

Edited June 7, 2016 by NigelMoore

[onionbargee]

No one can understand the CRT mindset, I'm surprised they have any feet left to shoot themselves in.

[Tony Dunkley]

Following the receipt of 'further instructions' from C&RT's Legal (?) and Enforcement departments, Shoosmiths have sent me the following E-mail :~

 

Dear Tony,

Further to our telephone call yesterday please find attached a copy of the Order made by Judge Owen QC on 1 June 2016.

Please also find our application to set this order aside, together with the supporting witness statement of Lucy Gray.

We will of course notify you once we receive a response from the Court in relation to our application.

Meanwhile, if you would like to make a proposal to CRT to resolve this matter, as per our discussion yesterday, please do bear in mind that this must address the issues of licensing your boat “Halcyon Daze” as soon as possible, and meeting any outstanding arrears.

Kind regards,

SHOOSMITHS LLP

. . . . the wording, and tone, of the above E-mail makes an interesting comparison with the concluding paragraph of the Claimant's Skeleton Argument, so very recently filed at Nottingham County Court :~

quote:

"The Claimant believes that unless it is granted an Injunction against the Defendant, . . . . . . . . . . the Defendant will simply move or tow the Boat to another mooring on the Canal or another canal or inland waterway controlled by the Claimant such that these proceedings will not have achieved their objective and will not enable CRT to comply with it's statutory duty to ensure that the inland waterways controlled by CRT are safe, well-managed and properly conserved."

. . . . . . All in all, a very pronounced and distinct change of objective, from 'we've got to get rid of you in order to ensure and safeguard the future of the UK's inland waterways', . . . to 'buy a boat licence, irrespective of whether or not the law demands that you do so, cough up whatever figure we dream up and claim as arrears, and we'll forget all about it."

Just immediately prior to the sending of the above E-mail C&RT have had to face up twice now ['Tadworth' and Andy Wingfield], in the space of one week, to the utter futility of deceiving the Courts into making inappropriate Section 8 based Orders, . . . . it's probably too much to hope for, but maybe the above E-mail is an indication that even the dead from the neck up hierarchy of the 'Enforcement Team' may now give some consideration to confining future litigation to the appropriate use of the powers which were specifically intended for dealing with genuine unlicensed or unregistered boats, . . . as opposed to boats that have been rendered unlicensed or unregistered as the result of C&RT's unlawful terminations of Licences or PBC's.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Dyertribe]

Call me pedantic (don't you dare!) but shouldn't the solicitors be addressing you in a rather more formal manner?

You're not their mate so Mr Dunkley would be more appropriate, and show a little respect.

[cuthound]

Call me pedantic (don't you dare!) but shouldn't the solicitors be addressing you in a rather more formal manner?

You're not their mate so Mr Dunkley would be more appropriate, and show a little respect.

No, they have corresponded for so long now that are on first name terms! ☺

[Tony Dunkley]

By way of further emphasis on the utter futility of C&RT obtaining Section 8 based removal and [subsequent] exclusion Orders/Injunctions, I have drawn the Court's attention to the fact that pursuing the suggestion of 'licensing' my boat [E-mail in post #1261] would have the immediate effect of nullifying the Section 8 and 13 Notices upon which C&RT's original claim relies, and ultimately, in the event of the original Claim being successful, rendering the Declaration and Injunction sought by the Claimant pointless and superfluous, as happened previously in August 2014 when the C&RT discontinued a substantially similar Claim [Nottingham County Court Claim No. A00NG769] after they were obliged to re-issue a PBC they had unlawfully revoked some seven months earlier in January 2014.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

By way of further emphasis on the utter futility of C&RT obtaining Section 8 based removal and [subsequent] exclusion Orders/Injunctions, I have drawn the Court's attention to the fact that pursuing the suggestion of 'licensing' my boat [E-mail in post #1261] would have the immediate effect of nullifying the Section 8 and 13 Notices upon which C&RT's original claim relies, and ultimately, in the event of the original Claim being successful, rendering the Declaration and Injunction sought by the Claimant pointless and superfluous, as happened previously in August 2014 when the C&RT discontinued a substantially similar Claim [Nottingham County Court Claim No. A00NG769] after they were obliged to re-issue a PBC they had unlawfully revoked some seven months earlier in January 2014.

Quite right.

[Tony Dunkley]

The Claim issued against me on 1 April 2016 was, in essence, to obtain Declaratory and Injunctive relief to the effect that the Canal and River Trust [C&RT] are entitled to prevent an individual from exercising the Common Law Public Right of Navigation on any or all of the River Navigations [PRN Rivers] listed in Schedule 1 of the British Waterways Act 1971(as amended).

The Claim was grounded in the false premise that C&RT are empowered to demand that any vessel kept or used on any of the above mentioned PRN Rivers must be licensed by the Trust, whereas the sole statutory obligation is simply for the vessel to be registered with the Navigation Authority by means of a Pleasure Boat Certificate, and then, only if it is to be used within the main navigable channel of any of the scheduled River Navigations.

Included within the relevant part of the legislation [section 5(1) of the 1971 BW Act] is a proviso exempting any pleasure craft from the need to hold a current Registration Certificate, or PBC, in order to use the PRN rivers if the vessel already has a Licence permitting the use of the canals upon which the PRN was extinguished in the 1968 Transport Act, . . . something which C&RT appear to have erroneously treated as being a requirement for vessels on PRN rivers to be 'Licensed'.

It would seem that at least some of these inconvenient [for C&RT] truths may have at last begun to find their way into the warped and feeble minds of the Enforcement hierarchy.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Tony Dunkley]

C&RT's Application [at Nottingham County Court] to have the Order made on 1 June 2016 that their Claim be struck out has not succeeded in the terms they asked for, which was that the matter should be decided, and the Claim restored, without a hearing; ie. on paper, by a District Judge in Chambers.

 

The Court has issued a 'Notice of Hearing of Application', and the hearing has been listed, with a time estimate of 30 minutes, for 1000 hrs on 5 July 2016.

 

Shoosmiths have written to me as follows, . . . I wonder if they have any particular source of worthless independent legal advice in mind ?

 

Our Ref LVG/M-00253260

Date June 2016

Dear Sir,

CANAL & RIVER TRUST -V- ANTHONY DUNKLEY

CRAFT “HALCYON DAZE” INDEX NUMBER: 52721

CLAIM NUMBER: C10NG401

HEARING IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NOTTINGHAM ON 5 JULY 2016 AT 10.00AM

We act for the Claimant in the above matter and enclose by way of service upon you a Notice of Hearing

dated 16 June 2016.

We confirm that we will be attending the hearing on 5 July 2016, at the County Court at Nottingham, on

behalf of our client, Canal & River Trust. This hearing is listed for the Court to hear our client’s application

to set aside the Court order dated 1 June 2016 striking out their claim against you. This order was made

as a result of the agreed non-attendance at the previously listed hearing because of your ill health.

In the interest of saving costs, in the event this order is set aside and the claim against you is restored,

we will request that the Court hear our client’s case at the hearing on 5 July 2016.

We would respectfully suggest that it is in the interests of both parties that in the event you intend to

defend our client’s claim against you, you prepare, file at Court and serve upon us, your Defence in

relation to this claim ahead of the hearing listed for 5 July 2016.

We suggest that you obtain independent legal advice on the content of this letter.

Yours faithfully

Shoosmiths LLP

[NigelMoore]

 

Dear Sir,

 

 

At least they have reverted to respectful address.

[Dyertribe]

 

At least they have reverted to respectful address.

And quite right too.

[Tony Dunkley]

Although not directly connected to C&RT's antics with regard to their almost fanatical use of Section 8 powers to remove certain selected licensed or registered, insured, BSSC'd and floating boats from their waters, it is worthy of note that there is at present an apparently abandoned, sunken boat in the main navigable channel of the river Soar.

 

This boat sank in October last year, has been ignored by C&RT since then, was washed into the navigation channel by last week's floods, and is now an unmarked hazard to navigation.

 

Given that S.8 of the 1983 Act went onto the statute books for the specific purpose of dealing with 'sunk, stranded or abandoned' boats in any inland waterway, this does beg the question of why C&RT are focusing all their attention on misusing S.8 powers in respect of vessels NOT 'sunk, stranded or abandoned' whilst failing to take any effective action with regard to vessels which unquestionably do demand attention and action under the provisions of the 1983 Act.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Tuscan]

Although not directly connected to C&RT's antics with regard to their almost fanatical use of Section 8 powers to remove certain selected licensed or registered, insured, BSSC'd and floating boats from their waters, it is worthy of note that there is at present an apparently abandoned, sunken boat in the main navigable channel of the river Soar.

 

This boat sank in October last year, has been ignored by C&RT since then, was washed into the navigation channel by last week's floods, and is now an unmarked hazard to navigation.

 

Given that S.8 of the 1983 Act went onto the statute books for the specific purpose of dealing with 'sunk, stranded or abandoned' boats in any inland waterway, this does beg the question of why C&RT are focusing all their attention on misusing S.8 powers in respect of vessels NOT 'sunk, stranded or abandoned' whilst failing to take any effective action with regard to vessels which unquestionably do demand attention and action under the provisions of the 1983 Act.

A fair point

[onionbargee]

Although not directly connected to C&RT's antics with regard to their almost fanatical use of Section 8 powers to remove certain selected licensed or registered, insured, BSSC'd and floating boats from their waters, it is worthy of note that there is at present an apparently abandoned, sunken boat in the main navigable channel of the river Soar.

 

This boat sank in October last year, has been ignored by C&RT since then, was washed into the navigation channel by last week's floods, and is now an unmarked hazard to navigation.

 

Given that S.8 of the 1983 Act went onto the statute books for the specific purpose of dealing with 'sunk, stranded or abandoned' boats in any inland waterway, this does beg the question of why C&RT are focusing all their attention on misusing S.8 powers in respect of vessels NOT 'sunk, stranded or abandoned' whilst failing to take any effective action with regard to vessels which unquestionably do demand attention and action under the provisions of the 1983 Act.

I believe their policy is to leave a wreck in situ as long as possible in the hope that the owner, or their insurance can be found, to pay for the removal.

Although not directly connected to C&RT's antics with regard to their almost fanatical use of Section 8 powers to remove certain selected licensed or registered, insured, BSSC'd and floating boats from their waters, it is worthy of note that there is at present an apparently abandoned, sunken boat in the main navigable channel of the river Soar.

 

This boat sank in October last year, has been ignored by C&RT since then, was washed into the navigation channel by last week's floods, and is now an unmarked hazard to navigation.

 

Given that S.8 of the 1983 Act went onto the statute books for the specific purpose of dealing with 'sunk, stranded or abandoned' boats in any inland waterway, this does beg the question of why C&RT are focusing all their attention on misusing S.8 powers in respect of vessels NOT 'sunk, stranded or abandoned' whilst failing to take any effective action with regard to vessels which unquestionably do demand attention and action under the provisions of the 1983 Act.

I believe their policy is to leave a wreck in situ as long as possible in the hope that the owner, or their insurance can be found, to pay for the removal.

[Hawkmoth]

Although not directly connected to C&RT's antics with regard to their almost fanatical use of Section 8 powers to remove certain selected licensed or registered, insured, BSSC'd and floating boats from their waters, it is worthy of note that there is at present an apparently abandoned, sunken boat in the main navigable channel of the river Soar.

 

This boat sank in October last year, has been ignored by C&RT since then, was washed into the navigation channel by last week's floods, and is now an unmarked hazard to navigation.

 

Given that S.8 of the 1983 Act went onto the statute books for the specific purpose of dealing with 'sunk, stranded or abandoned' boats in any inland waterway, this does beg the question of why C&RT are focusing all their attention on misusing S.8 powers in respect of vessels NOT 'sunk, stranded or abandoned' whilst failing to take any effective action with regard to vessels which unquestionably do demand attention and action under the provisions of the 1983 Act.

Steady on there Tony! You're being far too sensible.

Bob

[Tony Dunkley]

I believe their policy is to leave a wreck in situ as long as possible in the hope that the owner, or their insurance can be found, to pay for the removal.

 

 

I think you're being very generous by crediting them with anything resembling a considered and reasoned policy on sunken/abandoned boats, . . . or much else for that matter.

 

Apart from stealing boats that haven't been abandoned by the owners, and distancing themselves as far away as possible from the all the normal tasks and activities one would expect a competent and 'fit for purpose' navigation authority to engage in on a daily basis, C&RT don't seem to have any real policies, or purpose, at all.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Naughty Cal]

Although not directly connected to C&RT's antics with regard to their almost fanatical use of Section 8 powers to remove certain selected licensed or registered, insured, BSSC'd and floating boats from their waters, it is worthy of note that there is at present an apparently abandoned, sunken boat in the main navigable channel of the river Soar.

 

This boat sank in October last year, has been ignored by C&RT since then, was washed into the navigation channel by last week's floods, and is now an unmarked hazard to navigation.

 

Given that S.8 of the 1983 Act went onto the statute books for the specific purpose of dealing with 'sunk, stranded or abandoned' boats in any inland waterway, this does beg the question of why C&RT are focusing all their attention on misusing S.8 powers in respect of vessels NOT 'sunk, stranded or abandoned' whilst failing to take any effective action with regard to vessels which unquestionably do demand attention and action under the provisions of the 1983 Act.

This one?

 

Advice notice: River Soar, Navigation: Open, Towpath: Open

Reply

Notice Alert

River Soar

Starts At: Meadow Farm Marina Offline - L6 Mooring

Ends At: Meadow Farm Marina Offline - L6 Mooring

Thursday 16 June 2016 13:00 until further notice

Type: Advice

Reason: Information

 

Please be aware there is a sunken boat at this location, markers are being placed around the craft to identify the hazard, please take care whilst passing.