Tag: Birkenhead County Court

Getting information about Fernbank Farm is made unusually difficult; what are they trying to hide?

Getting information about Fernbank Farm is made unusually difficult; what are they trying to hide?

Getting information about Fernbank Farm is made unusually difficult; what are they trying to hide?

                      

I went to Birkenhead County Court today to get copies of documents to do with Wirral Council’s request for a possession order in the Fernbank Farm case. What I had requested was a copy of the two judgements (the first one arising from the application hearing on the 21st November 2013 and the second one from the fast track trial from February this year). I also had requested the “statement of case” and was told by letter that copies of these documents would come to £10.

When I paid the £10 I was given a copy of court orders dated 17th February 2014 (the possession order) and a court order I wasn’t aware of (that had been made without a hearing) on the 29th November 2013. I queried whether this was the one I’d asked for as the date was incorrect, but the member of staff insisted it was the right one (even though it wasn’t). I was also given a copy of the original particulars of claim (which had been attached to the claim form). This came to six pages in total.

I queried with the member of staff at the counter as to why the original claim form hadn’t been included, as the letter I had got in reply from the Court stated that a District Judge had agreed that I was entitled to a copy of the court orders and the statement of case (which I am entitled to under Civil Procedure Rule 5.4C). She insisted that the “statement of case” was just the particulars of claim and that I wasn’t entitled to any more documents beyond that which I had already received. I asked her to check the definition in the Civil Procedure Rules but she refused to do so.

I was going to the University of Liverpool library anyway, so while I was there I looked up what “statement of case” actually means. It’s defined in Part 2.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules as
“statement of case –

(a) means a claim form, particulars of claim where these are not included in a claim form, defence, Part 20 claim, or reply to defence; and

(b) includes any further information given in relation to them voluntarily or by court order under rule 18.1;”

So I printed off a copy of this and returned to the Birkenhead County Court querying why statement of case had been interpreted as meaning just the particulars of claim (especially as the statement of truth for the particulars of claim was on the claim form). I also pointed out that the court order of the 29th November 2013 requested the Claimant (Wirral Council) to “include a chronology setting out all relevant dates relating to the granting of the lease, notices given and dates by when action pursuant thereto should have occurred”. I asked why a blank defence form had been included in the earlier six pages, but not the defence, reply to the defence or the information supplied in response to this court order?

The member of staff said that they [the staff] disagreed with my interpretation of “statement of case” and that they would have to ask a District Judge which was impossible to do at that time as the Judge or Judges were on a lunch break. We waited for about an hour until she went to find a Judge (who unsurprisingly agreed with what the previous Judge had told the person who wrote the letter) and when she came back she had to provide me with the documents that she had earlier that day insisted I wasn’t entitled to which were the original claim form, the defendant’s amended defence (submitted in triplicate so she charged me for three copies), an acknowledgement of service form, blank defence form and another copy of the same particulars of claim (but this time including a map).

As this now came to twenty-five pages (instead of the original six), she insisted on charging an extra £7.50. This was despite the fact that she had given me a copy (again) of the particulars of claim (a further three pages). She insisted the second copy was an amended particulars of claim (it wasn’t, it was identical), the only difference being that she had now included a page of a map of Fernbank Farm. She also provided the amended defence in triplicate (which was three pages so therefore giving me it in triplicate meant an extra six pages). I quibbled over being charged extra for pages I had already been supplied with, but in the end I just paid the £7.50 as I can claim this back from the Birkenhead County Court in the next 6 months (as well as the original £10) using an EX160 form.

What was most telling was that I was told by the member of staff who reluctantly gave me what I paid for that I wasn’t to publish these documents on my blog! This was from the member of staff who didn’t know what “statement of case” meant!

Contempt of Court does apply to civil proceedings, however as detailed in s.2(3) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, this only applies when proceedings are “active”. Schedule 1 details that for civil cases (see sections 12-13), proceedings are “active when arrangements for the hearing are made until the proceedings are disposed of, discontinued or withdrawn”. Arrangements of the hearing of the proceedings is defined as “in the case of any proceedings, when a date for a trial or hearing is fixed”. The trial in this case was held on the 13th February 2014. The possession order given on the 17th February 2014 in Wirral Council’s favour disposed of the matter, therefore at that point proceedings were no longer active.

Even if proceedings were active (as they were prior to the 17th February 2014), there is a caveat in s.5 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 when it comes to “discussion of public affairs”. Section 5 states “A publication made as or as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest is not to be treated as a contempt of court under the strict liability rule if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion.”

There are no reporting restrictions in effect with regards to these proceedings and I am not subject to a court order preventing publication of these documents from the Birkenhead County Court. I therefore think that once again this member of staff has “got it wrong”. The Birkenhead County Court is subject to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as it is “unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right”. This includes article 10 which states:

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Therefore for the reasons above (that proceedings aren’t active and even if they were that what I’m going to publish falls under discussion of public affairs) and National Union of Journalist’s Code of Conduct rule 1 which states “At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed” I will be writing tomorrow have written at EXCLUSIVE: How Wirral Council’s court case to evict the Fernbank Farm tenants began on the 8th August 2013 about information I have found out from reading these documents.

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

Wirral Borough Council v McAdam and S & E Lomax trading as Lomax Transport Services v Sherrard, Sherrard and Wirral Borough Council

Wirral Borough Council v McAdam and S & E Lomax trading as Lomax Transport Services v Sherrard, Sherrard and Wirral Borough Council

Wirral Borough Council v McAdam and S & E Lomax trading as Lomax Transport Services v Sherrard, Sherrard and Wirral Borough Council

                         

There are two cases coming up this week in the Birkenhead County Court involving Wirral Council.

The first is on Tuesday 18th March 2014 in front of Deputy District Judge Abberton starting at 2pm and is expected to last ten minutes. The case is because Wirral Council is seeking a charging order (a charging order is a charge on a property registered with Land Registry which is paid if the property is sold) against a defendant referred to as McAdam. The case reference number for that case is 3bi07744.

In the second case Wirral Council looks like it’s listed as a defendant. The second case is down for Thursday at noon in front of Deputy District Judge Grosscurth (the same Deputy District Judge who decided on a court order last year in the case involving Kane and Woodley and a possession order for Fernbank Farm). It’s for a one hour case management conference. The party’s names in that case are listed as “S & E Lomax T/A Lomax Transport Svcs – Sherrard/Sherrard/WBC” which I presume means that the plaintiff is S&E Lomax trading as Lomax Transport Services and the defendants are Sherrard, Sherrard and Wirral Borough Council. The case reference number for that case is 3YJ60591.

I would guess that the first case is either a charging order to do with either work that the Council has carried out following a planning enforcement matter or about an outstanding debt. Lomax Transport Services is a road haulage business based in Rochdale. Quite who or what Sherrard are I’m not sure.

If anyone has further details on what these two mystery cases are about please leave a comment.

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

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.

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

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

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

                        

Continues from Mrs Kane takes the witness stand 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

Mrs Kane on the witness stand
Mrs Kane continued by saying that after her letter, she spoke to David Dickenson and told him she was going to hospital and that she wanted it all sorted before that.

Mrs Kane is cross-examined by Sarah O’Brien
District Judge Woodburn gave Sarah O’Brien (barrister for Wirral Council) an opportunity to cross-examine Mrs Kane. Sarah O’Brien asked Mrs Kane if she had said that she rang David Dickenson in May 2013 as Mrs Kane was concerned she had not heard from him? Mrs Kane replied “yes”.

Sarah O’Brien said something I couldn’t hear to which Mrs Kane replied that she’d been told that she’d hear from them [Wirral Council] about the new lease but she didn’t hear until 2012.

Wirral Council’s barrister asked Mrs Kane when she received the eviction notice had she read it? Mrs Kane answered yes. To clarify whether she was answering yes to receiving the notice or having read it District Judge Woodburn asked her if she’d read the eviction notice to which she answered that she had read the notice yes.

Miss O’Brien said that Mrs Kane had told David Dickenson she wanted to renew the lease on the Council’s terms, however that she was only prepared to renew on new terms. Mrs Kane explained she had asked him if he could help with the expenses as previously the legal fees had been reduced from £500 to £300. The only other term that she wanted changed was a rent increase of 2.5% and David Dickenson had told her he would make a site visit to discuss it.

Sarah O’Brien said that the letter sent sets out Mrs Kane’s terms which were not the same terms that were put forward by Wirral Council. Mrs Kane said that she wanted to renew the lease and had spoken to David Dickenson and told him that if he couldn’t do anything then to send the papers back to her. She had told David Dickenson that she wanted negotiations on the lease finished by the end of May and referred to an email from David Dickenson that stated that Mrs Kane had until May 31st.

The barrister for Wirral Council said that there was no reference in the defence to terms being agreed. Mrs Kane had that a “lot has gone missing”. Sarah O’Brien said it was a fact that terms (for the new lease) were suggested. District Judge Woodburn said that it was an important point if it’s said that Wirral Council accepted the terms of the new lease.

Mrs Kane referred to a telephone call. Sarah O’Brien asked her when the telephone call was? She answered towards the end of April. Mrs Kane said that she had been trying to get in touch with David Dickenson but all her called were being ignored. There had been no response to her letters and since 2012 David Dickenson had ignored her phone calls.

She had said that she had spoken with David Dickenson on the phone twice, but at all other times she had been told her was on site visits, in a meeting, that he would get back to her or that his father had died. Mrs Kane understood David Dickenson was a busy man but he was not answering her.

Sarah O’Brien said that she (Mrs Kane) didn’t get an answer to her letter to David Dickenson. She referred to page thirty-eight in the bundle and a reference to a phone call of 23rd May where it stated that Mrs Kane was awaiting a response (to her letter). Mrs Kane said that David Dickenson was ignoring her phone calls. Sarah O’Brien said that she didn’t contact David Dickenson as there was no reference in the earlier document.

Mrs Kane referred to emails which said to answer Mrs Kane’s phone calls and that this was in Wirral Council’s emails. Sarah O’Brien said that it was clear from the record of the phone call that at that point Mrs Kane hadn’t had a response (from David Dickenson). Mrs Kane said she had rung Mr. Dickenson and told him that they were willing to pay but if he can’t do it to send it back and that Mr. Dickenson knew that, she hadn’t been able to get in touch with Mr. Dickenson since. In 2012 she was told that Mr. Dickenson was at a funeral and that Peter Jones could take over.

Sarah O’Brien referred to the document containing the original defence and the point where Mrs Kane said that David Dickenson said “not to worry”. Mrs Kane said that at the beginning of May she couldn’t get in touch with David Dickenson and that he’d had the “shock of his life” when he answered the phone to her. She had asked him to send her an email if he could not do anything and to send the forms back, the public liability insurance receipt and the cheques. Mr. Dickenson had told her “not to worry” because he’d do it.

The barrister for Wirral Council asked her if in the same conversation that David Dickenson says he accepted the terms, to which Mrs Kane answered “yep”. Sarah O’Brien said that conversation was at the beginning of May and referred to something that referred to Mrs Kane phoning and saying she had had no response to her letter. Mrs Kane referred to an email that showed that David Dickenson knew about the deadline of the 31st May. Sarah O’Brien said she had no further questions for Mrs Kane.

District Judge Woodburn asks Mrs Kane questions
District Judge Woodburn referred to page eighteen and the eviction notice. He directed Mrs Kane to paragraph four which stated “If we cannot agree on all the terms of a new tenancy, either you or I may ask the court to order the grant of a new tenancy” and paragraph 5 which stated “If you wish to ask the court for a new tenancy you must do so by the date in paragraph 2” which was the 31st May 2013.

Mrs Kane said that she had spoken with Mr. Dickenson at the beginning of May to tell him and asked him about it and she’d asked Mrs Carman. When she’d asked Mrs Carman who was taking over Mrs Carman had answered Peter Jones. Mrs Kane said that she’d been told by Mr. Dickenson that if they were negotiating a new lease that she didn’t need to apply to the court. District Judge Woodburn said that Wirral Council hadn’t agreed anything and that there was no evidence of any agreement by Wirral Council.

Continues at Cross-examination of Kane & Woodley, parties summarise their case 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.

Mrs Kane takes the witness stand in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

Mrs Kane takes the witness stand in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

Mrs Kane takes the witness stand in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

                       

Continues from Mr Dickenson only following orders & describes cancer patient as “unwell” 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

Carol Kane takes the witness stand
District Judge Woodburn asked if there were other witnesses? To the defendants Mrs Kane and Mrs Woodley he said that the situation was that a notice was served and the notice had provisions as to who could give evidence.

Mrs Kane approached the witness stand and said, “I swear by Almighty God to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. District Judge Woodburn asked her to keep her voice up as it was being recorded. He said she had a soft voice so it may be best to move closer to the microphone. He asked her for her name. Her reply was “Caroline Lynn Kane”. She was asked for her address by District Judge Woodburn, she replied “8 Cranbourne Avenue, Moreton”. District Judge Woodburn asked if she was at the same address as in the lease dated 2008 to which she answered “yes”.

District Judge Woodburn asked her if she’d entered into a lease with the other defendant Mrs Woodley with Wirral Borough Council in relation to just over ten acres of land in Sandbrook Lane dated 29th July 2008? Mrs Kane answered “yes”. District Judge Woodburn asked how long the lease was for? Mrs Kane answered “three years”.

District Judge Woodburn said that that covered the period 1st June 2008 to the 31st May 2011, but what happened after May 2011? Mrs Kane said that she had phoned David Dickenson and told him that they hadn’t heard from Wirral Borough Council for three years and that the lease was up for renewal. She had told him that she’d been told that she’d be “hearing from [Wirral Council] soon” and that from 1998 to 2008 they’d had the same lease so she thought Wirral Council had “forgotten about us again”.

District Judge Woodburn said that that was about May 2011 and asked her when she next heard from Wirral Council? She answered that the next time they heard from Wirral Council was in November 2012. District Judge Woodburn asked her what happened in November 2012? Mrs Kane answered that they received a notice ending the lease but saying that Wirral Council were willing to renew the lease.

District Judge Woodburn asked her what had happened when they had received a notice like this before? Mrs Kane replied that every time (prior to this) the lease was up for renewal that they had got a new one. District Judge Woodburn asked what happened on previous occasions. Mrs Kane replied that the rent had been increased and the legal fees. District Judge Woodburn asked what happened when she received the notice? Mrs Kane said she got in touch with Wirral Council as they wanted to renew. She added that they’d had a lease for forty years and that she signed and sent back the new lease along with proof of their public liability insurance cover. District Judge Woodburn asked who had asked for it? Mrs Kane replied that Wirral Council had said that they needed proof of public liability insurance so she had sent them proof.

District Judge Woodburn asked after the lease came to an end did Wirral Council ask for proof of public liability insurance? Mrs Kane answered yes in a letter she was sent. District Judge Woodburn asked her if Wirral Council asked after May 2011, Mrs Kane answered yes in 2012. District Judge Woodburn asked if she had got the letters with her? Mrs Kane said that the letter said to renew the lease that they were to send proof of the public liability insurance with the signed lease.

District Judge Woodburn asked was this in the period after May 2011 and did she have the documents with her? Mrs Kane said she had got proof of posting of the lease back to Wirral Council and that it said in the papers that were sent by recorded delivery.

District Judge Woodburn asked if she was referring to the letter Wirral Council had written to her with a draft lease? She answered yes. Sarah O’Brien, barrister for Wirral Council said that there was no evidence of that. District Judge Woodburn told Sarah O’Brien to wait. Mrs Kane said that Wirral Council did send a letter with the notice to quit which said that Wirral Council were not averse to renewing the lease and to get in touch with David Dickenson. The terms of the new lease were sent with the letter.

District Judge Woodburn directed people to the notices in the bundle he had. Mrs Kane agreed with District Judge Woodburn. District Judge Woodburn directed people to paragraph 3 that stated “I am not opposed to granting you a new tenancy. You will find my proposals for the new tenancy, which we can discuss, in the Schedule to this notice.” and paragraph 4 which stated “If we cannot agree on all the terms of a new tenancy, either you or I may ask the court to order the grant of a new tenancy and settle the terms on which we agree.” He asked if Mrs Kane could see paragraphs three and four? She answered yes.

District Judge Woodburn pointed out that paragraph four stated that if there wasn’t agreement then either the landlord or tenant could ask the court. Mrs Kane said she had told David Dickenson that they would pay Wirral Council for the lease. District Judge Woodburn asked how she had told David Dickenson this, by telephone? She answered yes.

District Judge Woodburn asked her if she had told him by letter? She replied that there was a handwritten letter regarding Wirral Council’s costs. He asked where it was in the bundle to which Sarah O’Brien, barrister for Wirral Council replied page 35.

District Judge Woodburn asked Mrs Kane if she was referring to the letter dated Wednesday April 17th 2013? She said yes. District Judge Woodburn referred to the letter that stated they had had a bad year and were disagreeing with the terms of the lease, therefore she would be grateful if they could look at the expenses that they had had to pay out regarding the upkeep of the land. He said it didn’t look like the lease had been sent back on the terms offered.

Continues at Mrs Kane faces questions from Sarah O’Brien (barrister) and District Judge Woodburn 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: