Tag: Cllr Ian Lewis

Cross-examination of Kane & Woodley, parties summarise their case in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

Cross-examination of Kane & Woodley, parties summarise their case in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

Cross-examination of Kane & Woodley, parties summarise their case in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

                    

Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (case 3BI05210)
Birkenhead County Court
13th February 2014
Court Room 1

Continues from Mrs Kane faces questions from Sarah O’Brien (barrister) and District Judge Woodburn in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm).

Mrs Kane is questioned by District Judge Woodburn
Mrs Kane asked why they would pay for a further twelve months of public liability insurance if the lease hadn’t been renewed? District Judge Woodburn said something brief to which Mrs Kane said that Wirral Council had been “ignoring us”. She said that Wirral Council could only get out of renewing a protected lease if they had broken the terms of the lease and referred to a letter from 2012. District Judge Woodburn referred to an agreement. Mrs Kane said yes, that they thought that Wirral Council agreed to renewal.

District Judge Woodburn asked Mrs Kane why she had not done as suggested in paragraph five (which refers to applying to the Court)? Mrs Kane said she had spoken with David Dickenson in April or May and as far as she knew the lease was going through. The first thing she knew it hadn’t was in August when she received an invoice for £700. She rang the number and was told it was for rent because they’d given up the land which was the first thing she knew. Two days after she received details about Wirral Council’s request for a possession order. District Judge Woodburn said that Mrs Kane could return to her seat and swap with Mrs Woodley.

Mrs Woodley takes the witness stand
Mrs Woodley said, “I swear by Almighty God to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. District Judge Woodburn asked her name to which she replied “Valerie Patricia Woodley”. He asked her to have a seat and pointed out that she had not made a witness statement. District Judge Woodburn referred Mrs Woodley to a document at page fifteen and asked if it was her handwriting? She answered, “Yeah”. District Judge Woodburn asked her to go over the page to page seventeen and eighteen and asked if that was her handwriting? Mrs Woodley gave the same answer.

District Judge Woodburn asked if it was a statement made in support of the defence? She answered, “Yeah”. He asked her a further question, she answered then he said if she wished to she could have a seat.

Mrs Woodley is cross-examined by Sarah O’Brien
Sarah O’Brien, barrister for Wirral Council asked her to confirm the document was true, which referred to an alleged conversation between David Dickenson and Carol Kane. She said “yes”. Sarah O’Brien said that Mrs Woodley had no knowledge of the conversation as she had not taken part in it. Mrs Woodley explained that she had put that in because her mother was ill. Sarah O’Brien asked another brief question to which Mrs Woodley answered “no”.

Miss O’Brien asked Mrs Woodley if she accepted that she’d received a copy of the eviction notice which intended to end the business tenancy? Mrs Woodley answered “yes”. District Judge Woodburn referred to when she received the notice at page twenty-two in the bundle that it looked like that. He asked her to have a quick read of paragraph five. He referred to having to apply to the court to grant a new tenancy by the date in paragraph two (31st May) and whether she knew this? Mrs Woodley said that when her mum (Mrs Kane) was speaking she’d told her that they didn’t need to because they were in negotiations. District Judge Woodburn asked her if she had anything to add, she replied “no”. He asked her if she agreed with Mrs Kane to which she replied “yes” and if there was anything else she wished to add to which she replied “no”. District Judge Woodburn asked her to watch her step as she left the witness stand and that Mrs Kane and Mrs Woodley were not putting forward witnesses so he wanted both parties to summarise.

Mrs Kane asked if Cllr Ian Lewis (her McKenzie Friend) could summarise for her? District Judge Woodburn said “no”. She asked what about Martin Woodley? District Judge Woodburn said that Mr. Woodley was in the same position and that he thought both defendants could summarise in their own words what the case about. He said that they (the defendants) had done well up to now regarding their views. He said to summarise what the case is ultimately about is the fact that they didn’t apply to the court for a new tenancy, they said they didn’t do so because of what they were told which is their sole contention.

Mrs Kane summarises
Mrs Kane said that in forty years they’d never had a penny off Wirral Council. She continued by saying that many years ago when Wirral Council told them that they were moving them to a different place that Wirral Council had changed their minds and said they would not build on that site so they’d decided to stay. She said that they’d made new fences at a cost of thousands of pounds and repaired them after a storm. Mrs Kane said that she had been asking Wirral Council to be lenient about the cost of renewing the lease but they’d been stopped from renewing only because they were guilty of believing and trusting what Wirral Council were saying.

Mrs Woodley summarises
District Judge Woodburn asked if Mrs Woodley had anything to say? Mrs Woodley said that she agreed with her mother. She said that when they contacted Cllr Ian Lewis that he had confirmed that they must have taken the decision not to renew the lease. District Judge Woodburn referred to the evidence of David Dickenson with regards to his instructions. Mrs Woodley said that it was not from the Council. District Judge Woodburn said “that may be the case”. Mrs Woodley said that their “only crime was to trust” and that Wirral Council made it “impossible to renew the lease” and had done “everything possible to stop” them.

Sarah O’Brien (barrister for Wirral Council) summarises
District Judge Woodburn asked Sarah O’Brien to summarise Wirral Council’s case. Sarah O’Brien said that what the solicitor had provided was the prescribed form from the HMCS [Her Majesty’s Courts Service] website and that it was a standard form.

Ed – although she’s just repeating what she’s been told, the HMCS website doesn’t actually have this on it. The prescribed forms are part of the legislation and are on this website Schedule 2 of SI 2004/1005 (The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004), a site that has UK laws on it run by the National Archives.

District Judge Woodburn said “yes, thanks”. Sarah O’Brien said that she would be very brief. Sarah O’Brien said the tenancy was properly terminated in accordance with the Act and that the only defence raised was estoppel. District Judge Woodburn said that the evidence of the two parties was different as to whether there was a binding agreement which would mean an application to the court was not required.

Sarah O’Brien referred to evidence that contradicted that assertion, as the defendant had sent a letter proposing alternative terms. She said that the defendants say that the communication with David Dickenson was highly relevant and important but that it didn’t appear in their defences which is not to say it didn’t take place. District Judge Woodburn asked someone to please not interrupt her.

Sarah O’Brien referred to pages thirty-seven and thirty-eight which referred to chasing a response. She said that if she had received an assurance regarding the terms agreed, then there was no need to be chasing a response. Miss O’Brien said that the evidence did not support the assertion that new terms were agreed.

The second point Miss O’Brien made was a further suggestion that David Dickenson had told Mrs Kane categorically that she did not need to apply to the Court. If this had been said they why didn’t it form part of the defence rather than vague assertions such as being told “not to worry”? Miss O’Brien said that the only reason was that it was not said. She continued by saying that the assertion made that David Dickenson told her “not to worry” needed a clear context and the representation was too vague for it to be reasonable that it could be relied upon.

Miss O’Brien said that the notices were received and read and it was not a question that they were prevented or couldn’t make an application to the court and that was why the lease was not protected. She said that whether Wirral Council agreed to the terms or there was estoppel were facts, therefore Wirral Council should be entitled to a possession order.

District Judge Woodburn said he was going to take a break to consider, then he would invited people back and give judgement on the factual issues. He thought it was best for everyone to have a break. He would let the usher and clerk know when he was ready. The court usher would then ask people to come back in.

Continues at District Judge Woodburn grants Wirral Council possession order: pony club given a year to leave Fernbank Farm.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

2 notices, 1 attendance note & confusion over witness statements in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

2 notices,1 attendance note & confusion over witness statements in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

2 notices, 1 attendance note & confusion over witness statements in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

                      

This continues from Witness statements, rules & regulations, possession and estoppel in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm).

Estoppel defence
Sarah O’Brien, the barrister acting for Wirral Council said that District Judge Woodburn would have to be satisfied as to whether the possession order was precluded by statute but whether the estoppel defence had merit or not was another matter.

District Judge Woodburn said that the estoppel defence constituted reliance and detriment. Sarah O’Brien said that it comprised of representation, reliance and detriment. She said that what was served on the Claimant [Wirral Council] said how it was put. District Judge Woodburn asked if she could summarise?

Sarah O’Brien said that the alleged representation was “too vague” and that it must be sufficiently clear to be relied upon. District Judge Woodburn referred to there being no reply to the amended defence. Sarah O’Brien replied that it was a legal issue rather than a factual issue, the defendants say it was sufficiently clear, however the Claimant [Wirral Council] will say it was not and that on all three hurdles that the proposed estoppel defence fails. She said that it was a claim for possession, simply an order for possession and Wirral Council would not be making a claim for their costs from the defendants.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 c.56
District Judge Woodburn said to the defendants Mrs Kane and Mrs Woodley, that it would take us to a lot of technical arguments, both about the original notices and about anything done. He said that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 c.56 was quite strict and if things were not done then rights could be lost. He would have to determine if the notices were served in compliance with the Act, if the notices were not in compliance then certain consequences could flow and he’d have to make a determination as to whether they apply.

Witness statements
The argument in the amended defence about a representation made by someone not to worry was a factual issue. District Judge Woodburn continued by saying that who said when and in what context was required in the witness statements which had to be served on the court and Wirral Council by January. No application had been put forward [to change the time limit] so he had to explain the consequences of not filing in time.

One of the defendants asked a question about a witness statement that Wirral Council had. District Judge Woodburn asked when and the defendant answered before November [2013]. District Judge Woodburn asked if the defendant had a copy? The husband of one of the defendants asked if he could speak? District Judge Woodburn politely told him that he couldn’t speak. The same defendant referred to a date of the 4th December and the amended defence. District Judge Woodburn said he had got that. He asked a further question about the statements.

The defendant answered that is was before 9th January, that she had brought it herself and handed it to the office. District Judge Woodburn asked her what she’d handed in, she replied witness statements and all emails, District Judge Woodburn asked a further question to which she answered that the witness statements were three pages long.

District Judge Woodburn asked her if she kept a copy? The defendant held up a document. District Judge Woodburn referred to a document appended to the acknowledgement of service form with a date of the 21st August 2013. However he said there was nothing around December time.

The defendant said that she had taken the papers out of the envelope as she had been told to just give in the papers as they were not able to accept them in the envelope. The other defendant asked if it was the documents in the plastic container, to which the first defendant said “Is that what you meant your honour?” District Judge Woodburn replied that is was an attendance note.

The attendance note
The defendant said that she had had to resend a paper copy out of the folder to the Birkenhead County Court. District Judge Woodburn asked a question about the attendance note. She replied with the name of a person at Kirwans. The Judge said it may be a privileged document as it referred to a spoken conversation, could contain confidential information therefore it was not widely circulated to anyone, but it was a matter whether the defendants wish to rely on it.

Sarah O’Brien, barrister for Wirral Council said she would caution regarding its confidentiality. The defendant said she had sent it to Wirral Council. District Judge Woodburn asked when? She answered before January [2014]. District Judge Woodburn asked if was by post? She answered that it was hand delivered.

The receipt
District Judge Woodburn asked if it was done by Mr. Lewis and if they had got the receipt? He asked them to show the receipt to Miss O’Brien. Sarah O’Brien said she acknowledged the receipt was dated 4th December 2013 for the amended defence therefore she accepted it was received.

District Judge Woodburn said it was not the amended defence and for Sarah O’Brien to pass the receipt back. He said that quite clearly the document may not be required by the court order and the difficulty was regarding the evidence he had to listen to today was that it didn’t look like a witness statement in support of the amended defence.

Witness statements
One of the defendants said that there had been a witness statement. District Judge Woodburn said there had supposed to have been a witness statement and had the defendant not kept a copy? The defendant said it had gone missing. The Judge repeated his question and she answered that it had gone missing and that she hadn’t got any copies.

District Judge Woodburn said the attendance note was not a witness statement, it was a recording of a conversation. He said a witness statement was a formal document, a “document that set out the story” and that it would give far more detail with regards to the assertion. He referred to the witness statement of Mr. Dickenson which set out the kind of document that they were talking about.

One of the defendants asked a question. District Judge Woodburn replied that he would proceed on the basis that they don’t have the document and one was not served in accordance with the rules. Therefore they couldn’t hear evidence in support of the amended defence in support of the assertion “don’t worry” as the detail wasn’t given to the Court or Wirral Council. He could see it in the amended defence, but there was no detail just an outline which may raise the questions such as by whom it was said which can’t be asked or answered by the information within the witness statements.

Notices
District Judge Woodburn said it left the argument about whether the notices were in compliance with the act and whether the notices were responded to as required. He would deal with the responses before the notices, he asked if Sarah O’Brien was still waiting for some to come back?

Sarah O’Brien, barrister for Wirral Council answered, “I am.”

Continues at Notices, Bill Norman’s letter and David Dickenson takes the stand in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm).

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Who’s who, “plebgate” and DDJ Grosscurth’s court order in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

Who’s who, “plebgate” and DDJ Grosscurth’s court order in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

Who’s who, “plebgate” and DDJ Grosscurth’s court order in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

                     

Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (case 3BI05210)
Birkenhead County Court
13th February 2014
Court Room 1

Yesterday’s blog post headlined District Judge Woodburn grants Wirral Council possession order: pony club given a year to leave Fernbank Farm dealt with the end of the trial when District Judge Woodburn gave his judgement.

This blog post deals with the trial from the beginning. Before it started here’s a brief description of the scene in Court Room 1 of the Birkenhead County Court.

On the usually empty seats for the public (despite the court usher referring to Court Room 1 as “small” it’s not as cramped as the judge’s chambers were for the previous hearing) were about a dozen supporters of Fernbank Farm who had come to hear the trial and a small number of Wirral Council employees as well as myself and my wife.

Sitting on the right at the front were the two defendants Mrs Carol Eileen Kane and Mrs Valerie Patricia Woodley (Mrs Kane is the mother of Mrs Woodley), their McKenzie Friend Cllr Ian Lewis and Mrs Woodley’s husband Mr Woodley.

On the left waiting for the District Judge to enter was Sarah O’Brien, the junior barrister who was representing Wirral Council. There’s a picture of her on her Chamber’s website.

“All rise for Judge Woodburn”
The court usher asked those present to rise for District Judge Woodburn, people stood up and District Judge Woodburn arrived through a door to the back and right of the room and said “Have a seat”, to which Wirral Council’s barrister Sarah O’Brien replied to District Judge Woodburn with a polite but deferential “Morning Sir”.

“Let’s see who we’ve got”
District Judge Woodburn said “Let’s see who we’ve got” giving those present an opportunity to identify themselves to him. The two defendants Carol Eileen Kane and Valerie Patricia Woodley both gave their full names. Mr Woodley asked if he could speak on behalf of his wife Mrs Woodley. District Judge Woodburn said that Mr. Woodley was not a party to the case and that usually only parties to the case and their advocates sat on the front row. He understood Mr. Woodley was there to support his wife, but asked him to sit on the row behind. Mr Woodley got up and moved to the row behind the defendants.

Cllr Ian Lewis identified himself as a local councillor. District Judge Woodburn asked if he was acting as a McKenzie friend? Cllr Lewis replied that he was for both Mrs Kane and Mrs Woodley. District Judge Woodburn said that Cllr Lewis could whisper to the defendants, but he was not an advocate and that he [District Judge Woodburn] would direct questions to either Mrs Kane or Mrs Woodley.

District Judge Woodburn asked Sarah O’Brien if she was counsel for Wirral Borough Council. She replied “yes”. District Judge Woodburn said he was going to address everyone and said “I understand the emotions around this particular action” and that there had been one lease or another for forty years. He asked everyone to be patient, listen and not interrupt. If questions were asked he asked that people not speak across others. He wanted to ensure all parties had their say on the relevant points as it was important to determine the issues. District Judge Woodburn pointed out that proceedings were being recorded if one party wished to obtain a transcript from that recording they could subject to a payment.

No recording and switch your phone off
He pointed out that no one else was permitted to record by means of an electronic device, members of the public were entitled to report what they heard, but there was no permission for electronic recording or photography. If anybody left the court room and returned, they may be asked to produce
their mobile phones before being allowed back in. He asked everyone to check their mobile phones were switched off, not just to silent but switched off and then said “Let’s make a start.”

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 c.56
To Sarah O’Brien he said that he had read the bundle of documents but that they seemed “back to front”. Sarah O’Brien replied that she had noticed that, but that it was a relatively small bundle. District Judge Woodburn said they they were heading to highly technical areas involving the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 c. 56, he asked if the defendants had sought legal advice regarding the notices? The defendants replied that they had had a solicitor. District Judge Woodburn asked if they had sought legal advice on the notices before May 2013. The defendants answered “No”.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth’s Order
Sarah O’Brien said that the position was that the defendants had not filed witness statements which should’ve been done by the 9th January (this refers to a court order made at the hearing in November 2013 in this case). She said the defendant’s only defence was estoppel arguments which required necessary evidence and that the burden of proof for these was on the defendants. Sarah O’Brien further said that there had been no application for relief from sanctions and therefore since the decision in Mitchell (I presume she is referring to [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 which was a decision in a libel case known as “plebgate”) she was inviting District Judge Woodburn to proceed on Wirral Council’s evidence.

District Judge Woodburn asked her which page number the order about the witness statements was? Sarah O’Brien replied that it was on page five and over the page on page six. District Judge Woodburn said it was on page six, paragraph three at the bottom right. He asked if Mrs Woodley could see it and then for Cllr Ian Lewis to assist the defendants. District Judge Woodburn again pointed out that it was at the bottom right of page six and asked if the defendants had the same bundle followed by “let’s make sure we’ve got the same bundle” followed by “don’t take the documents out of the ring binder”.

He referred to page six, paragraph three referring to the court order about mutual exchange of witness statement by 4pm on the 9th January 2014 made by Deputy District Judge Grosscurth on the 29th November 2013 when both defendants and their McKenzie friend were present.

Continues at Witness statements, rules & regulations, possession and estoppel in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm).

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Incredible: Lyndale School call in causes second constitutional crisis for Wirral Council!

Incredible: Lyndale School call in causes second constitutional crisis for Wirral Council!

Incredible: Lyndale School call in causes second constitutional crisis for Wirral Council!

                            

Labour's Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explains at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School
Labour’s Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explaining at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School

This is a rather complicated saga, so it’s best to go back to the beginning and have a recap of what’s happened so far in chronological order. Way back on the 16th January despite an emotional plea from a parent, the Labour Cabinet decided to consult on closing Lyndale School. At the same meeting the same Cabinet also decided to agree to change how they divide up funding for pupils at special schools (which has an effect on Lyndale School).

On the 20th January I wrote a blog post headlined “Was the Wirral Council Cabinet decision to consult on closing Lyndale School lawful?” which included two polls. The first poll asked readers if they thought the decision was lawful (so far 92.31% think it wasn’t and 7.69% that it was) as well as a second poll on whether the decision should be called in (75% voted yes, 25% voted no).

The two decisions were then called in by councillors. The decision to consult on closing Lyndale was called in by Cllr Tom Harney, Cllr Phil Gilchrist, Cllr Jeff Green, Cllr Ian Lewis, Cllr Cherry Povall and Cllr Pat Williams. The decision on allocating funding (called proposals for change to school top up payments for students with high needs) was also called in by the same six councillors.

A meeting of the Coordinating Committee was arranged to consider the call in which prompted a blog post titled Is the Lyndale School call in going to the wrong Wirral Council Committee? along with another poll that asked whether it should be decided by the Coordinating Committee or the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee along with another poll in which 100% voted that it should be decided by the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee.

I wrote a further blog post on the 4th February headlined The Reasons why Wirral Council’s Lyndale School call in is being delayed. Councillors on the Coordinating Committee met on the 5th February (covered in “When is a call in meeting not a call in meeting? When it’s adjourned…”) and agreed a recommendation to adjourn the call in meeting to the 27th February until after the Council meeting on the 25th so that Council could co-opt the necessary parent governor representatives and Diocesan body representatives onto the Coordinating Committee.

At this point it’s worth pointing out what it states in Wirral Council’s constitution on call ins (it’s at 35 (3)(b) (page 138) if you wish to check this out for yourself) “(b) The relevant Chief Officer and all members will be notified of a call-in immediately and no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed. A decision of the Cabinet, a committee of the Cabinet or individual Cabinet member may be called in only once.”

I’ve added some underlining to emphasise the bit “no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed”.

However agenda item seven for tomorrow’s Cabinet meeting has an agenda item “Schools Budget 2014/15”, which is officer’s recommendation to Cabinet for the schools budget which will then be recommended to Budget Council on the 25th February.

At 4.3.5 of the report to Cabinet it states the following:

4.3.5 High Needs Block

The make up of this block is complex. It is based on the “place plus” system introduced by the DfE [Department for Education] from April 2013 and includes:

  • Special schools (pre and post 16), school bases and independent non-maintained special schools. All receive a base level funding of £10,000 per place following agreement of place numbers with the Education Funding Agency (EFA).
  • Alternative Provision Bases and WASP. This provision is funded at £8,000 per place.
  • Additional funding over and above that provided for places will be paid in the form of “top ups”. These will be provided on a per pupil basis. The top up, or “plus” element of funding, is based on the agreed assessed needs of pupils and is paid by the “commissioner” responsible; this may be Wirral Children’s Services, a school or another Local Authority. In 2014/15 it is anticipated that a new banded top up system (with 5 bands) will be introduced and will be used to allocate funding to special schools, resourced based and alternative provision.
  • The costs of all education and training for post 16 specialist and LLDD provision (top ups) to colleges and private providers.
  • The Hospital Schools budget

Compare the above to the report titled Proposals for Changes to School Top Up Payments for Students with High Needs which went to be decided by Cabinet on the 16th January, resulted in Cabinet agreeing the proposals and was then called in (quoted below).

2.2 “with each school receiving an amount of £10,000 per place and an additional top up based on individual pupil needs.”

2.4 “Top Up funding (ie the “Plus” element) reflects the additional support costs in excess of place funding for individual pupils and students and takes into account factors such as the pupils individual needs and facilities / support provided.”

“This is a significant piece of work that has been undertaken with Wirral’s Schools Forum’s SEN Finance Steering Group, the outcome of which has resulted in a banded approach to top ups for:”
…
“Students in post 16 provision with element three costs; Further Education Colleges, Sixth Forms and Independent Specialist Providers (ISP);

Basically the proposals mean the same (but written with slightly different words). If these recommendations from officers on the Schools Budget for 2014/15 are agreed by Cabinet, it will become recommendations to Budget Council on the 25th February (and recommendations to Council can’t be called in). If that’s the case then the call in decision by the Coordinating Committee on the 27th February on the top up payments for students with high needs becomes a fait accompli as the decision on the Schools Budget for 2014/15 will have been made already by Council on the 25th February.

I pointed this out by email to the Cabinet Member (Cllr Tony Smith), Cllr Phil Davies (who chairs Cabinet meetings), the Chair and spokespersons on the Coordinating Committee, the councillors who called in the decisions, Surjit Tour (Wirral Council’s Monitoring Officer), Graham Burgess (Chief Executive who has a role in the call in process) and Andrew Roberts (the officer who wrote the report to Cabinet) which outlined what had happened and contained the following four questions.

I know there is a reserve Budget meeting set aside for the 4th March. Therefore my questions are:

1) Would it not be better to consider the schools budget on the 4th March as by this time the decisions reached by the call in meeting on the 27th February will be known?

2) Bearing in mind the constitutional requirement that “no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed” can either the Cabinet on Wednesday recommend a schools budget (when an element of that budget being proposed has been called in) or Council on the 25th February decide on a schools budget (for the same reasons) without being accused of making a decision in breach of Wirral’s constitution?

3) If the schools budget is to be decided on the 4th March, will an extra Cabinet meeting be required between the 27th February and the 4th March to consider any recommendations arising from the call in
meeting?

and

4) In order for these decisions to be made according to Wirral Council’s constitution does this require the budget council procedure (agreed by Cabinet on the 16th January) to be altered so that the
schools budget is dealt with as a separate matter to the rest of the Budget?

Thank you for taking the time to read this, I look forward to either hearing a response to these questions at Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting or receiving a formal response by email before then.

So far I’ve received responses from two councillors. One just stated “Thank you for the information”, the reply from the other councillor stated that they’d follow up my query with the report author Andrew Roberts.

So what’s really going on? The line written in the report “In 2014/15 it is anticipated that a new banded top up system (with 5 bands) will be introduced and will be used to allocate funding to special schools, resourced based and alternative provision.” makes it sound like the outcome of the call in is being predicted by an officer before it’s even taken place! So what’s really going on? Does anybody really know or is this just the uniquely strange and peculiar way that Wirral Council makes decisions?

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 2

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 2

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 2

                                   

Continues from EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 1.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he would include with the witness statements standard disclosure. Wirral Council asked if standard disclosure meant by list with a copy attached? Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked them to take care with hidden documents.

Cllr Ian Lewis made a point about the missing correspondence. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said it should still be in the list. Wirral Council said that they should all have a copy.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he wanted to set down how long the final hearing would be, with four witness statements, he suggested three hours. Wirral Council agreed with three hours.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth started dictating the text of his order, then changed his mind and decided to do it the other way round instead. He said that unless the defendants filed and served a defence, then their existing defence would be struck out and judgement entered for the Claimant (Wirral Council).

Wirral Council sad that they should be entitled to rely on the existing defence. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said there would be no amended defence unless the defendants filed and served on the Claimant an amended defence by 4pm in twenty-one days? Cllr Ian Lewis agreed with “Yes, Sir.”

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said if the amended defence was not filed and served by the 12th December then the case would proceed on the basis of the defence already filed and served. For point two in the court order he wanted to move to standard disclosure. He wanted standard disclosure by list with documents attached that were referred to therein filed and served by 4pm on the 12th December.

For point three of his court order he wanted mutual exchange of witness statements by 4pm on a specific date, he pointed out at this point it would have to be well after the 12th December and he’d have to take into account the Christmas period and he suggested the 9th January 2014?

Wirral Council urged the Court to to tighten the timescales a little as the Claimant (Wirral Council) felt it was a relatively straight forward matter that wouldn’t wouldn’t take a great deal of time and could be relatively quick. Wirral Council said regarding the importance of the case it should be dealt with procedurally could the timescales be tightened up?

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked Wirral Council what they proposed? Wirral Council answered that they would like the timescales brought forward by a week, with a hearing soon after in the New Year. Cllr Ian Lewis said that to be practical, they wished to stick to the timescale for the first two dates.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth repeated the timescales of 12th December 2013 and 9th January 2014 with an early listing thereafter. He asked then about the bundle?

Wirral Council said as it was their claim that they would produce a paginated and indexed bundle.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth repeated and stated that the Claimant would prepare a paginated and indexed bundle in anticipation of the trial of this matter to be filed at court at least seven days before the trial date. He explained to the litigants-in-person that it was a principle that he didn’t want the judge hearing the case to be taken by surprise. A copy bundle would be sent to the defendants and everybody would be served a bundle with numbered pages, served and filed at the court at least seven days before the trial date.

Wirral Council asked about the allocation? Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked if it was a part 8 claim that had been issued? Wirral Council said they were happy with it being dealt with as a part 8 claim. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that would mean it was given an immediate hearing date. He asked what they were looking for?

Wirral Council said in their opinion it was a fast track matter and said they don’t want to proceed with an allocation questionnaire as it would delay with the matter so that could be dispensed with as well.

Cllr Ian Lewis said he had no idea what an allocation questionnaire was. District Judge Grosscurth explained that the options were small claims, multi track or fast track but this was “definitely fast track” as it was not a small claim matter so it would be allocated to the fast track. He said they would be dispensing with the directions questionnaire.

Wirral Council said they would be amalgamated. District Judge Grosscurth said it had been changed in April. Now there was a directions questionnaire and a listing questionnaire and that it would be listed for a final hearing at the next available date after the week to deal with the statements, which was the 16th January 2014. He asked what the estimated length of the final hearing would be?

Wirral Council answered three hours. District Judge Grosscurth said he would change that, as whoever was hearing it on the day needed knowledge of the case. He suggested half an hour of reading time and a two and a half hours for the hearing to split it up.

District Judge Grosscurth asked if there was anything else? Wirral Council said that they “don’t think so” but asked about costs? District Judge Grosscurth said that costs would be sorted out at the end of the day and that there are cost implications which the parties needed to be aware of. He suggested the defendants seek advice from a solicitor or the Citizens Advice Bureau. He made part six of his order about costs in the case and said that the parties knew what they had got to do. Cllr Ian Lewis thanked him, Wirral Council thanked him.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks: