Is it just spite?

THE Canal & River Trust (CaRT) are taking boater Andy Wingfield to court a second time this week.

It is understood that the decision to take further action against Mr Wingfield was taken before publication of the embarrassing transcript from the first case (The court case CaRT could not hide).

Agreement not broken

The new case is not because Mr Wingfield has broken a confidential agreement with the Trust but because the Trust has revoked his licence yet again.

CaRT found Mr Wingfield a mooring as part of the confidential agreement in the first case. This relieved him of any obligation to use his boat ‘bona fide for navigation' under the British Waterways Act 1995. However, CaRT has revoked his licence because it dislikes his new cruising pattern.

You could not make it up!

Tony Dunkley

The new case bears remarkably similarities to CaRT vs Dunkley where CaRT, having read Mr Dunkley's defence, decided not to proceed thus wasting £16,500.

Having already wasted £38,400 attempting to remove Mr Wingfield's boat from its waterways , one is left wondering how much will be wasted the second time.

Is there any real point to this new case or is it just spite?

(It is probable that the new Andy Wingfield case will be stayed pending an appeal in another case—Section 8's on hold?)