The court case CaRT could not hide
THE Canal & River Trust (CaRT) have been embarrassed by the publication of a transcript of a court case, in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Trust had stated that it did not hold a copy of the transcript in the case of CaRT vs Wingfield. However, concerned boaters have 'crowdfunded' a copy (Crowdfunding gets elusive CaRT document) which has now been placed in the public domain with CaRT being given the relevant links.
A long read
The document (which is in two parts, ‘Day One' and ‘Day two') is a long read but confirms that snippets that have already been published are a true record of what was said in court. One snippet that has appeared in several places is an exchange that took place between Mr J. Fowles, appearing on behalf of CaRT (and instructed by its solicitors, Shoosmiths), and His Honour Judge Pugsley.
Judge Pugsley, made it very clear towards the end of the first day that he thought the case was going nowhere and if it continued and a precedent was set then it might not be favourable to the Trust. Mr Fowles attempts to talk down to him did not help matters either!
A major going nowhere
JUDGE PUGSLEY: Well, it is clear that you wish to argue this particular case, but, if you think you are going to establish a general principle favourable to the Inland Waterways Board, as they used to be called, you may be right or you may be wrong, you take that risk. But, if you fail, it becomes a wider application.
MR. FOWLES: Well, if we believed that a precedent was set that was unfavourable, we would seek to appeal it, obviously, so that is obviously a risk that we recognise.
JUDGE PUGSLEY: And I think, if I were you, I would have a word with the person who sits behind you in the light blue tie [Shoosmith's solicitor]. I think this is a case, if I may say so, where some overnight consideration would be very wise. I do not want you to think, either of you, that I have a fixed, firm resolve. At the moment, I have that terrifying difficulty that affects some judge sometimes that I think there is justice on both sides. This is a strange case. I am sorry but being addressed by you as though I was a major going nowhere and you are a young subaltern with a field Marshal's baton in your hand is not the most, is not in fact the wisest choice. I do not think this is a case that is going to the House of Lords or even the Supreme Court. I think this is a case that ultimately is in difficulties because it founders in the middle. ***italics***
Costs
As previously reported, an accommodation was reached whereby CaRT re-licenced Mr Wingfield's boat and provided him with a mooring which is paid for via housing benefit. It cannot take further action against him without the permission of the court.
Why a settlement could not be found without involving a court is not known. What is known are some of the costs for the legal action. Solicitors fees were £17,177. Counsels fees were £9,436 and other costs were £11,775.20. A total of over £38,000 which does not include CaRT's internal staff costs (CaRT state these are not recorded). Of course, none of it is recoverable.
What a complete and utter waste of money!