Jump to content

Lightship Advertised for Sale


NigelMoore

Featured Posts

and if i remember correctly the video was a bit rude about the court as well.

 

Mr Ceylon, producer of the video, is rude about all authorities he perceives to be abusing their powers.

 

His productions betimes suffer from his style of approach and nature of the content, but for Mr Roberts the importance of collaborating in this lies with the possibility of further publicising what has happened in the hope of garnering [pun intended] the maximum possible exposure and support.

 

Inaccuracies and hyberbole detract from the impact, but such publicity has an impact nonetheless, regardless of my own reservations..

Let's hope he sells the boat quickly to fund some of the legal costs then - after all he's valued it at £1.5 million - or is that a bit like selling the video recorder, to afford a telly?

 

That is one example of damaging hyperbole; such a valuation is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owner also claims that Tony Dunkley is acting as a McKenzie Friend - is this true?

 

It is true that Mr Roberts asked the court if Tony could act as McKenzie Friend at Monday's hearing. That was allowed - though of course, as usual, Tony was not allowed to speak on Mr Robert's behalf, and was in an uncomfortable position. He did remarkably well under the circumstances, but you cannot assist in any meaningful way a Claimant who ploughs his own furrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The status of Planet immediately prior to CaRT taking action could well be one of the less easy matters to establish as the basis of a court judgement:

 

When Mr Roberts and others bought the ship in 2008 (see http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/mersey-bar-lightship-planet-saved-3472771)they stated that they did so with the intention of operating it as a tourist attraction. Whether or not this was meant to make a profit, at that stage it was clearly intended as a business.

 

I do not now when the web site www.merseyplanet.co.uk was last updated but in its current state it clearly advertises itself as 'museum and cafe' as well as being available for hire as an even venue. It also says that it serves alcohol and states that it is licensed so to do.

 

Many small business owners find that they have to sign contracts in their personal identity, especially if there is significant money involved and the other party is not prepared to allow them potentially to shelter behind a limited liability. I know personally that sometimes one even has to put one's home on the line in order to fulfill an ambition.

 

Whilst the copy of the agreement which is exhibited above is only for 2014, it is reasonable to assume that there were previous agreements in which the owners' status was considered. Has Mr Roberts shared all of these for scrutiny?

 

Mr Roberts may well also need to choose between a rock and a hard place. If he says that he was not a business then witnesses attesting to the fact that he sold alcohol may not be helpful! Also, if he did have a licence then I assume that the licensing authority will have on record something about the status of the business - as I recall you had to show something about being a fit and proper person.

 

None of this supports anyone taking disproportionate action nor flouting proper protections afforded to individuals or to businesses, but care needs to be taken that the claimed protection actually applies in the specific context. No use saying that x had that protection when x was in a different situation from y.

 

If this case does go further then, given the complexities, it is likely to be a field day for lawyers (always is when there are complicated surrounding issues) and thus extremely costly for all concerned.

 

Most businesses have an insurance policy that includes some protection for legal costs but (a) one does have to have kept the premiums up to date and (b ) satisfy the insurer that there is a reasonable chance of success.

 

(I have tried to make this into two posts as what follows is a different line but the system keeps conflating the two!)


From here there do seem to be two quite distinct sets of interests: (a) those who want to use this case to explore the finer details of what CaRT can and cannot do and (b ) those who want to see the lightship restored to the heritage of Liverpool waterside. It may well be that these two act against each other and some folk may have to decide on which side they stand. Clearly (a) is very much of interest to Mr Roberts and associates whilst (b ) has a good number of local people behind it.

If it were shown that to have the lightship restored for public access would require Mr Roberts to accept the initial decision of the court, where might the pressures lie? The last thing they would want is for CaRT to 'fire sale' the vessel in order to be shot of the problem! Such a sale is unlikely to save the vessel for Liverpool. I know just how long such heritage projects take to bring to fruition, they often involve a lot of distinct public bodies, and CaRT's patience during this period will be an important prerequisite.

Edited by Mike Todd
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From here there do seem to be two quite distinct sets of interests: (a) those who want to use this case to explore the finer details of what CaRT can and cannot do and . . .

 

It might just be important to realise that this case has nothing to do with CaRT as Statutory Trustee of the inland waterways’ ‘protected assets’, i.e. the navigations pertaining to the old British Waterways, nor does any of the BW/CaRT legislation apply.

 

This case is simply one where the furore is over the ethics and legality of the actions of a common or garden variety of business; it just so happens that that business in this instance is CaRT. The initial topic heading in the previous thread now frozen [section 8 Canning Dock?] was in error, in that this had nothing to do with s.8 powers – as CaRT themselves were quick to point out.

 

So this discussion is not exploring the finer details of what CaRT can and cannot do as the navigation authority, it is exploring the finer details of what moorings operators in general may or may not do, and how far they can contract out from under general public statutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It might just be important to realise that this case has nothing to do with CaRT as Statutory Trustee of the inland waterways’ ‘protected assets’, i.e. the navigations pertaining to the old British Waterways, nor does any of the BW/CaRT legislation apply.

 

This case is simply one where the furore is over the ethics and legality of the actions of a common or garden variety of business; it just so happens that that business in this instance is CaRT. The initial topic heading in the previous thread now frozen [section 8 Canning Dock?] was in error, in that this had nothing to do with s.8 powers – as CaRT themselves were quick to point out.

 

So this discussion is not exploring the finer details of what CaRT can and cannot do as the navigation authority, it is exploring the finer details of what moorings operators in general may or may not do, and how far they can contract out from under general public statutes.

I agree - I was not trying to imply otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It might just be important to realise that this case has nothing to do with CaRT as Statutory Trustee of the inland waterways’ ‘protected assets’, i.e. the navigations pertaining to the old British Waterways, nor does any of the BW/CaRT legislation apply.

 

 

I'm interested in your basis for this statement. In another situation BW (as they were then) told me that the BW Acts applied to all of the waterways they owned, regardless of whether they were BW waterways at the time of the relevant BW Act, or were acquired later, as in the case of the Liverpool Docks and the Rochdale Canal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm interested in your basis for this statement. In another situation BW (as they were then) told me that the BW Acts applied to all of the waterways they owned, regardless of whether they were BW waterways at the time of the relevant BW Act, or were acquired later, as in the case of the Liverpool Docks and the Rochdale Canal.

That is not, I think, the point: this case is about the implications of a failure to meet the conditions of a berthing agreement which was agreed between two parties, one of whom happened to be in a position similar to a marina owner.

 

Incidentally, why does http://www.merseyplanet.co.uk/history.phpsay that ownership passed to Mr Gary Anderton in 2016?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm interested in your basis for this statement. In another situation BW (as they were then) told me that the BW Acts applied to all of the waterways they owned, regardless of whether they were BW waterways at the time of the relevant BW Act, or were acquired later, as in the case of the Liverpool Docks and the Rochdale Canal.

 

Mike Todd's response is correct, but to answer your question regardless of the Liverpool scenario, the sad fact is that you were misled David.

 

I refer you to BW’s former long time Head of Legal Nigel Johnson, whose 2006 address to the Parliamentary Waterways Group observed that BW were in fact bound by the terms of all the preceding and original enabling Acts, reaching back to the 14thC [and in fact earlier].

 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/307877625/Nigel-Johnson-Talk-to-Parliamentary-Waterways-Group

 

Note particularly the accurate observation on the first page that: “It is the enabling Acts that in many important respects are both the original and current authority for BW to own and/or manage its waterways.” [my bold]

 

This is confirmed by the terms of the public Act creating British Waterways, wherein the much abused s.43 of the 1962 Act specifically confirmed the continued binding restrictions of the original enabling Acts upon British Waterways as to what they could levy charges for – restrictions confirmed in the latest amendment of the section upon passage of the 2012 Order passing the regulatory functions on to CaRT.

 

It does not matter then, what waterways BW/CaRT have since taken or would take over from that point, they will always continue to be bound by the terms of the statutory powers of regulation specific to those waterways [unless and until, of course, some unifying primary Act expressly abolished all such, and conferred uniform powers over all].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Incidentally, why does http://www.merseyplanet.co.uk/history.phpsay that ownership passed to Mr Gary Anderton in 2016?

I think most of what is on the website can be safely ignored. I did ask early on re the ownership in the light of the above, but never got an explanation. I assumed it was a failed attempt to evade responsibility by claiming a transfer had taken place. I think Mr Anderton was the bloke on board when the ship was moved, but I may be wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.