Lightship Advertised for Sale

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

 

Exactly!!

 

More heresay.

I agree.

Paul C said 'Just because they've stuck it in the injunction application doesn't make it relevant.....I've read the claim, thanks.'

 

One assumes that as he has read the claim he can provide a link to it and provide a coherent response to the transcript.

[Geo]

I'm curious as to how Geo knows about the check of the PNC. Are such checks placed searchably in the public domain as a matter of routine?

 

I read the papers before commenting

[Geo]

I agree.

Paul C said 'Just because they've stuck it in the injunction application doesn't make it relevant.....I've read the claim, thanks.'

 

One assumes that as he has read the claim he can provide a link to it and provide a coherent response to the transcript.

 

I believe the only thing that matters tomorrow is if the Judge decides whether the CRT contract of 2014 overrides the statutes of 2016 and whether the action taken in 2016 under that contract was legal or whether there is sufficient to order a full hear of the whole thing. All the rest is for another day if ever. If he orders a full hearing the injunction will stay in place.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

I believe the only thing that matters tomorrow is if the Judge decides whether the CRT contract of 2014 overrides the statutes of 2016 and whether the action taken in 2016 under that contract was legal or whether there is sufficient to order a full hear of the whole thing. All the rest is for another day if ever. If he orders a full hearing the injunction will stay in place.

Mr Roberts claim is that he was served notice by the Canal & River Trust on 5 August 2016 to remove his ship on the grounds of arrears of Berthing Fees at a time when CaRT had filed a claim against him for arrears in the County Court.

 

The court action was not disputed but four days before judgement was passed CaRT and contractors forcibly seized the ship. The judgement debt was paid in full but CaRT are still claiming over £50k (and growing) from him.

 

He states that the seizure was unlawful in that sections of Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Torts (Interference with Goods Act) 2007 were contravened.

 

In particular,

 

there was no enforceable judgement

 

the use of bogus bailiffs who were not CEA's or HCEA's.

 

He says CaRT's belief that the 2014 berthing contract exempts it from complying with statutory protections is misconceived.

 

He is asking that CaRT be ordered to return the ship to him at the Mersey River at its own expense and risk.

 

CaRT's defence relies on the berthing agreement but they have put forward no argument as to why this should override statute.

[Jrtm]

If crt are relying on the berthing agreement and any debts were paid then there is no outstanding debts so how can crt take it to cover dedts that no longer exist?

 

In some ways i hope crt loose and have to return the boat (they wont return it thell find some bull that means they refuse and drag it out) i then hope the papers get wind and they get investigated.

 

In other ways i hope they dont loose as its trust money being spent on a load of time waisting again.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

If crt are relying on the berthing agreement and any debts were paid then there is no outstanding debts so how can crt take it to cover dedts that no longer exist?

 

In some ways i hope crt loose and have to return the boat (they wont return it thell find some bull that means they refuse and drag it out) i then hope the papers get wind and they get investigated.

 

In other ways i hope they dont loose as its trust money being spent on a load of time waisting again.

CaRT maintain that despite, paying his mooring fees as ordered by the court, Mr Roberts owes them a further £50,000 and rising. They are holding him responsible for the costs associated with seizing the ship, surveying it, making it ready for sea, towing it on a long journey, storing it and selling it.

 

It is CaRT's assertion that a berthing agreement which expired at the end of 2014 allows them to do that.

[Athy]

CaRT maintain that despite, paying his mooring fees as ordered by the court, Mr Roberts owes them a further £50,000 and rising. They are holding him responsible for the costs associated with seizing the ship, surveying it, making it ready for sea, towing it on a long journey, storing it and selling it.

 

 

But surely, if they had not (unfairly, it appears from what Allan says) seized the ship, it would not have incurred these costs. So it's their own fault.

[hounddog]

If what is alleged is true it's an enormous shame that firstly CRT have gambled and likely lost a large sum of public money on this crazy scheme and secondly there seems no possibility (yet) of a criminal prosecution of those responsible.

 

Not to mention besmirched the name of a surveyor who probably acted in good faith.

 

The towage company and Shoosmiths will be the only ones to gain from this debacle.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

But surely, if they had not (unfairly, it appears from what Allan says) seized the ship, it would not have incurred these costs. So it's their own fault.

They seem to have taken these actions simply to teach Mr Roberts a lesson by increasing his costs.

 

... and of course they stand to profit by the sale. This is not S8 where the balance is returned.

[Geo]

Mr Roberts claim is that he was served notice by the Canal & River Trust on 5 August 2016 to remove his ship on the grounds of arrears of Berthing Fees at a time when CaRT had filed a claim against him for arrears in the County Court.

 

The court action was not disputed but four days before judgement was passed CaRT and contractors forcibly seized the ship. The judgement debt was paid in full but CaRT are still claiming over £50k (and growing) from him.

 

He states that the seizure was unlawful in that sections of Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Torts (Interference with Goods Act) 2007 were contravened.

 

In particular,

 

there was no enforceable judgement

 

the use of bogus bailiffs who were not CEA's or HCEA's.

 

He says CaRT's belief that the 2014 berthing contract exempts it from complying with statutory protections is misconceived.

 

He is asking that CaRT be ordered to return the ship to him at the Mersey River at its own expense and risk.

 

CaRT's defence relies on the berthing agreement but they have put forward no argument as to why this should override statute.

 

The most important thing is does the 2014 contract override the current statutes regarding actions that took place in 2016 and before or even was the contract an unfair contract in the first place. If the Court decides it does override the statutes CRT are home and dry. If the Court decides that the statutes overrule the 2014 contract CRT have a major problem and will almost certainly take any Judgement to Appeal.

 

If the 2014 contract does not override current statutes then all of the other things will almost certainly be wrong.

 

Then there is the effect of other statutes and common law.

 

I think the Judge has a case and a half on his hands.

[Athy]

 

 

 

If the 2014 contract does not override current statutes then all of the other things will almost certainly be wrong.

 

Then there is the effect of other statutes and common law.

 

I think the Judge has a case and a half on his hands.

With both 'Strictly' and 'Celebrity' having finished their seasons, we need some new excitement.

What surprises me is that, this apparently being a complex case, they're starting it as late as December 19th. The chances of it being "all over by Christmas" must be slim.

[matty40s]

This is to gain an injunction to stop the sale, not an actual case itself.

[Athy]

This is to gain an injunction to stop the sale, not an actual case itself.

...which should be a quicker process, I guess. Thanks.

[Geo]

This is to gain an injunction to stop the sale, not an actual case itself.

 

To confirm the injunction the Judge has to decide if the Claimant has a case. So he has to decide if the 2014 contract rules or not or whether it is arguable either way, which is the crux of the matter. Once he has done that where it goes depends on CRT, assuming against CRT, they could, unlikely, throw in the towel, appeal the injunction, ask for a full hearing, or the Judge could order a full hearing. If a full hearing it goes in the queue to sometime next year. We will just have to wait until later today to see what the Judge thinks is the right course of action.

[matty40s]

I could have typed all that twaddle but didn't bother, sometimes short and sweet is all it needs.

[Geo]

I could have typed all that twaddle but didn't bother, sometimes short and sweet is all it needs.

 

You could have but it might be best to have it all laid out saves a lot of typing if it is.

 

Oh the injunction is already gained as you put it.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

You could have but it might be best to have it all laid out saves a lot of typing if it is.

 

Oh the injunction is already gained as you put it.

I've just heard that the hearing did not go well for Mr Roberts. No further details at the moment.

[Arthur Marshall]

I've just heard that the hearing did not go well for Mr Roberts. No further details at the moment.

Can't say I'm surprised. No doubt we'll hear from Nigel in the fullness of time.

[Graham Davis]

The silence is deafening!

[Iain_S]

Which is not a good sign ....

[Graham Davis]

Indeed.

I do wonder whether there might have been a "silencing" order issued, since there has been no comments over on TB either.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Graham Davis

[thebfg]

Sorry to cross forum post but Td has made a brief comment that the injunction was refused and the berthing contract is valid and that crt can add terms and conditions that override statutory law.

 

I am aware this may have serious consequences for everyone and a fuller update will come out later today and he is sorry for the late update but they were working on next steps first.

Edited December 20, 2016 by thebfg

[MtB]

Which is not a good sign ....

 

Why not?

 

In my opinion Mr Roberts and CRT have each behaved abominably. Both deserve to lose.

[Alan de Enfield]

Sorry to cross forum post but Td has made a brief comment that the injunction was refused and the berthing contract is valid and that crt can add terms and conditions that override statutory law.

 

I am aware this may have serious consequences for everyone and a fuller update will come out later today and he is sorry for the late update but they were working on next steps first.

 

Outside of this case - the ramifications of that statement is more than a little worrying

 

eg :

 

C&RT can refuse to issue you a licence (if they so wish) even if you meet the 3 criteria listed in the 1995 Act (BSS, Insurance, & a mooring declaration) which have previously been considered sacrosanct.

[hounddog]

or even, to strike a slightly hyperbolic course, allows the return of slavery.

 

to quote Donovan "just get him to sign on the dotted line and work for 50 years"

Edited December 20, 2016 by hounddog