Jump to content

GLA suing to evict London Marina


NigelMoore

Featured Posts

 

Answering this here would take us way off topic. I mentioned it only as an example of the lengths these authorities will go to to achieve their ends with wealthy development partners. If you want me to answer this, send me a PM. I guarantee little by way of response just now, because my head is full of too much else, but I will do what I can.

No need to spend your valuable time on this on my account, Nigel. But thanks anyway. I am paying professional advisors to sort out my problems. I threw my comments into the pot to point to some aspects of planning problems and Land Registry issues that I have recently come across that might have a bearing on Gallions case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just looked up tomorrow’s listing for this case, and details are below. Only 10 minutes allotted – it is a paper shuffling exercise and there is no room for presenting any sort of argument.

In the County Court at Bow

Chambers D

Monday 21 November 2016

Before Deputy District Judge Boon

 

2:00 PM

C03BO078 GLA Land & Property ltd -v- Miller & Miler - 10 Mins - Possession Other

 

 

Just possibly I suppose, a pro would know what could be suggested within that 10 mins for deferral to a more considered hearing, but my suspicions are that it is all too late for that now.

 

I will go along anyway, and report back what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unexpectedly cheerful news to report.

 

The judge decided, before the parties were due to go before her [well, long past due strictly, because it was well over an hour before the previous cases were dealt with] that the extent of filed information was too great to be disposed of in a ten minute hearing, and proposed an adjournment.

 

The judge took pains to go through the options once everyone had filed in, and to cut the story short Leigh-Jayne is given 21 days to prepare a ‘proper’ Defence in compliance with the CPR, and to file a Counter-Claim if she wishes at the same time. There is to be a directions hearing for the first available date after 9 January.

 

ITN had done an interview in the morning, and at least one member of the press was present at court throughout. It will be interesting to see what the media make of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unexpectedly cheerful news to report.

 

The judge decided, before the parties were due to go before her [well, long past due strictly, because it was well over an hour before the previous cases were dealt with] that the extent of filed information was too great to be disposed of in a ten minute hearing, and proposed an adjournment.

 

The judge took pains to go through the options once everyone had filed in, and to cut the story short Leigh-Jayne is given 21 days to prepare a ‘proper’ Defence in compliance with the CPR, and to file a Counter-Claim if she wishes at the same time. There is to be a directions hearing for the first available date after 9 January.

 

ITN had done an interview in the morning, and at least one member of the press was present at court throughout. It will be interesting to see what the media make of it.

Good of you to wait. Now that the matter is in the hands of the court are we free to discuss the issues here - ie. is it sub-judice?

The ref no you gave above yesterday does not returns anything from a Google search. Do you know the court case on-line link that we can look up for details in the public domain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that the matter is in the hands of the court are we free to discuss the issues here - ie. is it sub-judice?

The ref no you gave above yesterday does not returns anything from a Google search. Do you know the court case on-line link that we can look up for details in the public domain.

 

Of course we are free to discuss the issues here. There is a lot of nonsense spouted about “sub-judice”; it is a constraint upon those cases where incitement of public opinion could be seen as influential on a jury or judge in cases where the law is not at issue, only where the facts are disputed – as in: is someone guilty or not?

In cases like this, the facts are not disputed, the interpretation of the law is. It ought not to be supposed that a judge is going to be capable of being persuaded as to that, by the voice of public opinion.

There have been seemingly muttered protests from CaRT about the public discussion of ongoing court cases, as there have been from BW in days of yore. I have had the Chairman of the Board refuse to discuss resolution of issues between us on the grounds that it would be sub-judice – anything more ridiculous could not be imagined. Same thing happened with a similar request of mine to Parry [and he came under criticism for that from the court, because it was precisely once proceedings had started that the possibility of ADR became most important].

Their reaction depends, of course, on what they wish to achieve; in the course of the Judicial Review launched by the NBTA some years ago [over the new ‘Guidance’] BW promptly published online their Rebuttal of the challenge, ridiculing the very idea that they could be questioned, even though one of the most senior judges in the land had by then decided that there WAS a case to answer.

It should also be remembered that in the Ravenscroft case, I and others had been prolific in comment and discussion over the issues at stake, and quite a few of my posts were reproduced and given to the court to read. That proved to be something of an own goal, and rather than criticise such discussion and consider my involvement unsuitable, the court commented that my contributions were no doubt a valuable resource for boaters, and granted rights for me to act as advocate for Leigh.

I did a quick search online for ‘official’ comment on the subject, and this article clarifies the issues involved rather well: -

http://www.out-law.com/page-9742

e.g. “Both statutory and common law contempt of court are concerned with the possibility that a juror, witness or lay judge may be influenced by material which is published about active legal proceedings . . . However, it is acceptable to publish material as part of a discussion of public affairs or as a contemporary report of the day's legal proceedings.” [my emphasis]

In the instant case of Gallions Reach Marina, the proceedings to date have been widely published by national press and will continue to be. The situation is very much a matter of public interest and affecting the affairs of the public in general respecting the activity of local authorities, and more particularly affecting the interests of boaters, and how facilities for and of the waterways are being systematically discarded in defiance of firm planning policies.

 

The reference number I gave is the Case number used by the court; it will not assist in any googling however. Details of court actions online are not published by the courts. The information as to when and where a hearing will be held is published online, but for anything other than the listings for the RCJ in London, you need to subscribe to something like “CourtServe”, and even then will have to know the details beforehand and the expected dates, because the final details are rarely released before the afternoon of the day before!

 

https://www.courtserve.net/

 

For anything more, we are dependent on what the relevant parties wish to reveal about their side of the story. As I have said, more than one press rep is pursuing the story and it will be interesting to watch; I doubt that the Mayor will be very forthcoming, however. It is too much of an embarrassment [well one would hope so] to be put in the position of having to explain why he is acting directly contrary to hugely significant planning policies he demands are adhered to by the local boroughs [and compliance with which has since become law].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huge thanks to everyone for your kind support. First blood to Gallions! Just a shame comments disabled on YouTube as people's views/displeasure are no doubt being followed and a good indication of the mood of the people. Lots to do regards social media etc - really not my thing so will sub-out to trusted source to arrange. Also have a lead on a Deputy High Court Judge/QC who maybe interested in offering us some advice. Will NEVER give up. Best wishes to you all, Leigh and all at Gallions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi there all,this is Leigh from Gallions Point Marina with an update. We have fantastic support from one of the top QC's (internationally!) who is also a High Court Judge and member of the Privy Council. Thank you Lord for sending us an angel! Nigel, Del, update: proof that the dog ate their homework = "despite exhaustive efforts" GLA unable to locate alleged Tenancy at Will. Off to Bow County Court again on 24th January at 10am but this time with a barrister who specialises in cases tainted by fraud. Oh, and now the twonks at RoDMA (Royal Docks Management Authority) have just issued proceedings to evict us too - so have to attend Edmonton County Court on 7th February....so, just what happened to the protection and enhancement of moorings and boat yard facilities as enshrined in law Blue Ribbon Network??????

Edited by LJM@GPM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Leigh-Jayne, am so glad you now have a hefty QC on your side!

 

Where on earth do the RoDMA fit into this? Is it to do with waterspace occupation distinct from land space occupation?

 

I brought your case up at the latest City Hall symposium on the Blue Ribbon Network policies, and said they needed beefing up if the Mayor himself can get away with defying his own policies. Notes on that were studiously scribbled down, but the Mayor's intention is actually [and unsurprisingly] to pare down the London Plan, so I fully expect that waterside policies will be watered down in future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update following this morning’s hearing. The GLA wanted a summary judgment giving possession, but Leigh-Jayne’s barrister managed to persuade the court that this matter should be given a full trial, which will involve a day and a half at central London County Court sometime in May.

 

A good result, and gives Leigh-Jayne the chance to put together a witness statement saying everything she wants, while the barristers can put together an amended defence.

 

An Evening Standard reporter was there the whole morning, and an article may well come out tomorrow.

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emailed to me this afternoon -

Can you please share this around? Gives people a bit of hope; some of us just WILL NOT roll over and take it - so they don't have to either, if we all stick together!

Reminds people that we don't have to just accept idiot decisions from morons who know nothing about the importance of the Thames.


http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/crime-court/trial_to_decide_future_of_beckton_marina_1_4865549

Miss Leigh-Jayne Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

That’s a turn-up for the books – none of the Chinese consortiums with which Khan was flirting, instead, a UK company.

I wonder how much should be read into “working on this project with the local community”, and whether that possibly includes the existing marina operators. At least they have undertaken large scale waterfront developments previously, although I do not know how far that incorporated water uses and boating facilities.

I haven’t been able to discover what has been going on respecting Leigh-Jayne’s struggles.

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.