Jump to content

CRT being sued in the High Court for misuse of Section 8 rule


Horace42

Featured Posts

So CaRT have a legal duty to maintain the entire width of the river to a depth which would allow a vessel to navigate? i.e. go aground in the Trent, and CaRT are liable??:lol:

There is no public right of navigation on rivers controlled by CaRT, and therefore no distinction between River Registration and Licencing (apart from cost)?? Aye, right! :huh:(And why not call it a River Licence, then? Oh, hang on ....)

Haven't studied it deeply, so these are just the obvious bits that come to mind.

(and didn't get asked for $8.99 either :rolleyes:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Not if I have to pay $8.99 to view it. 

Why would you have to do that? You can read any document on scribd for free for 30 days. I'm sure it won't take you that long to get through it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

So CaRT have a legal duty to maintain the entire width of the river to a depth which would allow a vessel to navigate? i.e. go aground in the Trent, and CaRT are liable??:lol:

There is no public right of navigation on rivers controlled by CaRT, and therefore no distinction between River Registration and Licencing (apart from cost)?? Aye, right! :huh:(And why not call it a River Licence, then? Oh, hang on ....)

Haven't studied it deeply, so these are just the obvious bits that come to mind.

(and didn't get asked for $8.99 either :rolleyes:)

You can not draw that inference from their skeleton argument, in fact they are stating the opposite.  Their contention seems to me to be that the phrase 'main navigable channel' is not a defined phrase and as such can and indeed does have different meanings in different pieces of legislation.  In the case of the requirement to have a licence to keep a boat on the river the phrase 'main navigable channel' relates to the main river from bank to bank, but does not include 'other areas forming part of the inland waterway, such as tributaries, cuts, backwaters, inlets et cetera'.  So had the boat been moored off the main river on a tributary or a drain for example it would not need a licence, it would however require a licence if it used the river to gain access to or from the mooring place whilst it was using the river.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Their contention seems to me to be that the phrase 'main navigable channel' is not a defined phrase and as such can and indeed does have different meanings

Which was a point picked up by (I think) one of the Judges in a section 8 case where C&RT explained that 'place' can have several meanings but the Judge struggled to accept that 'place' (as in having somewhere to keep a boat / have a mooring) was a specific 'point' or 'location' but, 'place' (when you do not have a mooring) can be many miles 'in distance' - as in 'parish' etc etc.

either—

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

How can the same word, in the same piece of legislation, and even the same section and sub-section of the legislation have such differing meanings ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

How can the same word, in the same piece of legislation, and even the same section and sub-section of the legislation have such differing meanings ?

Because the legislation is written by lawyers,  and if they wrote it in crystal clear, unambiguous language, then they would no longer be able to earn vast amounts arguing what it may or may not mean at someone else's expense. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chewbacka said:

You can not draw that inference from their skeleton argument, in fact they are stating the opposite.  Their contention seems to me to be that the phrase 'main navigable channel' is not a defined phrase and as such can and indeed does have different meanings in different pieces of legislation.  In the case of the requirement to have a licence to keep a boat on the river the phrase 'main navigable channel' relates to the main river from bank to bank, but does not include 'other areas forming part of the inland waterway, such as tributaries, cuts, backwaters, inlets et cetera'.  So had the boat been moored off the main river on a tributary or a drain for example it would not need a licence, it would however require a licence if it used the river to gain access to or from the mooring place whilst it was using the river.

We must hope that the Judge is blessed with vision enough to see through CRT's unstinting efforts to brainwash everyone into believing that the terms 'Licence' and 'Pleasure Boat Certificate' share precisely the same meaning for everyday, practical purposes and are freely interchangeable in their use ! Whatever meaning is attributed to the phrase 'main navigable channel' and whatever the extent of it's boundaries, one thing that is absolute certain is that keeping or using a boat on one of CRT's rivers does NOT require a "Licence".

The inclusion of "cuts" in CRT's selection of things which they say do not comprise the main navigable channel is interesting, and indicative of either some very muddled thinking on their part, or alternatively, utter contempt with regards to the intelligence of those they seek to bamboozle with such nonsense. A moment spent considering the reason for digging 'cuts' on any of the CRT rivers should suffice. If you accept the CRT argument excluding 'cuts' from forming part of the main navigable channel on a river you are left with the inescapable conclusion that they must be arguing that, in reality, it is the weir streams that fulfill that function ! 

Edited by PhilAtterley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Place", even in (i), can have varying meanings, which could be refined by adjectives. It could mean a specific boat length of pontoon or bank, or could be a wider area, such as an entire marina. (The boat has a mooring, but the marina owner reserves the right to shuffle boats around). It is conceivable that it could cover even more ground in the context of mooring, especially if the mooring was an arrangement between the boat owner and local waterways management. 

I do, however, agree with the judge! :unsure:

"Main navigable channel", however, is a noun further defined by two adjectives, "Main" implies that here are other channels, and, also, other navigable channels. "Navigable" means that a boat can float and move on it. If the "main navigable channel" extends from bank to bank, it is no longer "main", as it is the only one, but I suppose it could still be described "navigable" if a boat could pick its way through, avoiding the shallow bits :D The easiest way to make sense of the phrase is to give it the same meaning in the Waterways Act  1971 and Transport Act 1968.

I  see that Shoosmith's construe Section 43(2) of the Transport Act 1962 as protecting rights of free navigation. Are they saying that the Waterways Act 1971 repealed them?

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

"Place", even in (i), can have varying meanings, which could be refined by adjectives. It could mean a specific boat length of pontoon or bank, or could be a wider area, such as an entire marina. (The boat has a mooring, but the marina owner reserves the right to shuffle boats around). It is conceivable that it could cover even more ground in the context of mooring, especially if the mooring was an arrangement between the boat owner and local waterways management. 

I do, however, agree with the judge! :unsure:

"Main navigable channel", however, is a noun further defined by two adjectives, "Main" implies that here are other channels, and, also, other navigable channels. "Navigable" means that a boat can float and move on it. If the "main navigable channel" extends from bank to bank, it is no longer "main", as it is the only one, but I suppose it could still be described "navigable" if a boat could pick its way through, avoiding the shallow bits :D The easiest way to make sense of the phrase is to give it the same meaning in the Waterways Act  1971 and Transport Act 1968.

I  see that Shoosmith's construe Section 43(2) of the Transport Act 1962 as protecting rights of free navigation. Are they saying that the Waterways Act 1971 repealed them?

  

Tom Deards explicitly disowned the Grimes' Statement where it alleged abolition of the PRN [although he did not disown the "consequently" paragraph following those].

What Mr Stoner did explicitly ague in their Defence, was that the whole registration scheme of the 1971 Act was abolished by the 1983 Act - but he sensibly forbore to reiterate that absurdity in either his Skeleton or at trial.

One thing I hope I did manage to bring to the fore in oral presentation, was that all but two of the scheduled river navigations listed in the 1971 Act are actually the statutory "Navigation" rather than the river per se. In other words - as, pertinently, the "Trent Navigation", referring to the single channel for which the historic statutory commissioners were responsible. If the single channel is already described as that, exclusive of truncated and redundant natural river bends short-cutted by artificial "canals", and tributaries etc, then we already have described a defined solitary navigable channel - the "main" channel of which forms the "river waterway" defined in the 1968 and 1971 Acts.

Hence, on my argument, Mr Stoner's attempted explanation that "main" refers to the river bank to bank but exclusive of such redundant natural river sections and tributaries etc, is meaningless, because such adjacent waters were ALREADY excluded. He got quite upset over that line of argument, getting huffy over his misapprehension of what exactly I was saying, asserting his readiness to apologise to me if he had misunderstood me. Fortunately the very sharp Judge cut him short in his critical peroration, informing him that she understood that I was saying something entirely different - that I was arguing for the "Trent Navigation" being a single channel navigable from bank to bank along both natural and artificial navigable sections. Invited to confirm this, I was of course very happy to do so. Mr Stoner's attempted criticism rather backfired on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And good luck from me.

I've got to say that of the "Moore" and "CaRT/Shoosmith" arguments, the "Moore" one is the one which is self consistent, doesn't contradict other legislation, and doesn't require a re-write of English dictionaries to make its case.

I only hope the judge agrees!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am certainly totally confident of the arguments; that does not translate, necessarily, into judgments, which may be affected by political considerations. Whether those influence this case or not is yet to be seen, and though Leigh is supremely optimistic, I retain a contrary cynicism. Regardless, it will prove to be a very interesting judgment whichever way it goes, and of course, even if it goes in Leigh's favour, CaRT have already assured the Court that they would appeal anything adverse to them. This will not be the end of the saga.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . and of course, even if it goes in Leigh's favour, CaRT have already assured the Court that they would appeal anything adverse to them. This will not be the end of the saga.

I wonder if they will be content with restricting any Appeal to anything adverse to them in the Judgment, or if they will try to "appeal" their own admissions with regard to using S.8 as a debt collection tool ?

I'm sure they will already have their best most warped minds addressing the issue ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, PhilAtterley said:

I wonder if they will be content with restricting any Appeal to anything adverse to them in the Judgment, or if they will try to "appeal" their own admissions with regard to using S.8 as a debt collection tool ?

I'm sure they will already have their best most warped minds addressing the issue ! 

If nothing else, the forced admission that s.8 cannot [by extrapolation] be used as licence enforcement, is of immense value and a win for boaters generally regardless of any other outcome to this case; it would never have been made otherwise. But this needs rigorous follow-up, otherwise, on past performance, CaRT will simply continue to s.8 boats as their claimed sole licence enforcement tool.

Mr Stoner's argument on paper and in court, was that the boat was seized because unlicensed, NOT because it owed licence fees. When that was put forward in Court, was the first time I ever heard a judge laugh out loud. There IS a distinction of course, and CaRT have removed boats with paid up licences just because they have revoked the licence - that is a whole 'nother ball game that needs sorting out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Clearing out my desktop, I realise that I missed a trick respecting evidence that the boat was seized for non-payment of alleged licence arrears, and that it was unlawfully held subject to payment of those [deliberately, i.e not as some “mistake”].

The Skeleton Argument filed by Shoosmiths back in April for the pending Appeal against costs in the Injunction proceedings, states categorically, and carelessly [paragraph 4]:

On 27 January 2015, the Trust removed the Boat from the Property pursuant to its statutory powers and arranged storage of the Boat pending payment of the sums owing to the Trust by the Appellant, which included the cost of removal and storage of the Boat.”  [my emphasis]

Bit of a killer bit of evidence to rebut their claims in the main proceedings that they had had no such intention.

https://www.scribd.com/document/352446249/Ravenscroft-v-CaRT-Respondent-Skeleton-Argument-for-Court-of-Appeal-re-costs

Edited by NigelMoore
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.