Tag: Birkenhead County Court

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:

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

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

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

                         

I was at Birkenhead County Court for an application hearing in the case of Wirral Borough Council v Kane and Woodley heard in front of Deputy District Judge Grosscurth starting at 3pm.

Kane and Woodley are the defendants in the case where Wirral Council is seeking a possession order for Fernbank Farm. Although the defendants had previously been represented earlier in the case by Kirwans, they were no longer represented by Kirwans and had chosen Cllr Ian Lewis to represent them.

Representing Wirral Council was a man called Ali Noman Bayatti (who is a solicitor working for Wirral Council). I refer to him by the party he was representing (Wirral Council).

In the minutes before the case was heard Wirral Council made an offer to the defendants to agree to a possession order which wouldn’t be implemented for a further eighteen months. However the defendants rejected this offer.

The defendants and Wirral Council went to the Judge’s chambers first for a few minutes. Then the press and some other interested parties (who were not parties to the case but were interested in its outcome) were invited into the Judge’s Chamber.

There were less seats than people so a number of people had to stand. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth started by saying that they were “limited on seats”. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he no objections to Cllr Ian Lewis speaking during the case, he asked if the form had been signed? Cllr Ian Lewis said it required the defendants’ signatures. The defendants signed the form. The Deputy District Judge pointed out that Cllr Ian Lewis would speak for both defendants (Kane and Woodley).

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that he had a “couple of items to tidy up” which dated back to an order made in September to do with permission to change a defence. Cllr Ian Lewis explained that the defendants had previously been represented by Kirwans but that as costs had spiralled this had led to the defendants dispensing with Kirwans’ services as their legal representative.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked if they intended to submit an amended defence? Cllr Ian Lewis said that their intention was to engage a different solicitor to do so or do it themselves. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth pointed out that they were supposed to file by the 21st August and that it would look like an extension.

Wirral Council said that there had been an application for a further extension to the date for the provision of a defence. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he had not seen it. He referred to an order of a different judge and the fact that it should have been filed no later than the 14th October which had now expired. He said that the application to further extend the date for the provision of a defence referred to by Wirral Council was not in the case file.

Wirral Council said, “I might be mistaken” and gave their agreement as long as it didn’t delay things too much. Wirral Council referred to the overriding principles in the Civil Procedure Rules and said that the case needed to move ahead.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he would not alter the draft, but that since the 1st April that the time limits had been tightened up. He pointed out that everybody was deemed to know the law and the rules that guide all cases. He referred to a recent Court of Appeal case and said that the needs of litigants-in-person can be accommodated but that the Court couldn’t rewrite the rule book. He asked if Wirral Council had any further objections. Wirral Council answered “No”.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that he would agree to extending the time for filing an amended defence. His next point was that he gathered the three people present (apart from the press, parties to the case and Cllr Ian Lewis) were users of the stable land but not technically parties to the hearing, just observers. He said to them to appreciate that they had “nothing to do with this matter” as the Council had made an application for possession of the land and it was up to them how they dealt with “your issues”.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that he looking for an “early trial” and asked how long they expected it to take? Wirral Council replied that they had filed a witness statement of a David Dickenson, but that they might add a supplementary statement. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked how many witness statements the defendants would be submitting? Cllr Ian Lewis answered, “Three, Sir.”

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth pointed out that the Civil Procedure Rules were on the internet and that the defendants and Cllr Lewis could search for them in Google. He pointed that that the Civil Procedure Rules stated the form that witness statements should take and they needed to also include a statement of truth and that they would have to “look into that”. He asked how much time they would need to get prepared and serve their witness statements?

One of the two defendants asked if they could use the ones prepared by Kirwans? Cllr Ian Lewis answered (to Deputy District Judge Grosscurth’s question) three weeks. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that he couldn’t see there being many documents. Wirral Council answered that he didn’t think there were any relevant documents to be disclosed apart from the witness statements.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he they should include in the witness statements anything they wish to rely on. If there was extra information brought up at the final hearing then it would either be ignored or the case would be adjourned (with costs awarded to Wirral Council if the case was deferred because of the defendants). He said he was ever conscious with litigants in person that there were no outstanding issues and that the person hearing the case would “not be ambushed”. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked for any documents to be included in the witness statements. He asked if there were any points to be raised?

One of the two defendants said that they had not received any correspondence from Wirral Council since July 2012 except for something last August. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that he would include in Mr. Dickenson’s statement as it was relevant. He said any documentation has “got to be disclosed” and under the rules of disclosure they had to disclose everything whether it was in favour of their case or not.

Wirral Council asked for standard disclosure.

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

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

Following the Court Order of 18th April 2012 and a Lib Dem smear: My response

Following the Birkenhead County Court order of 18th April 2012 naming Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats granted by Deputy District Judge Ireland following the court hearing of the 4th April 2012, the Lib Dems have finally coughed up the original complaint (not shared with me until now 12 months later, despite their constitution stating 10 weeks) made about me by Simon Holbrook in May 2011 (after he lost his seat). I’ve sought advice and am making parts of it public (as there’s a public interest to at least parts of it being made public), along with my version of events (which seems far closer to reality than his complaint, my comments are in italics). Here’s section 1:-

“1. Smearing of Sitting Councillors

In an email to Cllr Gilchrist dated 19 May 2011 at 09:59, John Brace did link the Standards investigation into Cllr Williams’ and Cllr Bridson’s part in the “special charging policy” with that of the recent investigation into the way in which Martin Morton was treated, despite the fact these are two separate matters.

Cllr Williams and Cllr Bridson are not and were not under investigation into the alleged bullying of Martin Morton. This investigation, which was instigated by former Cllr Holbrook has now concluded and reported. It never was and never had been a matter for the Standards Board for England.”

As is detailed here it was considered twice by the Standards Board for England, as initially the complaint about Cllr Bridson hadn’t been sent to them. The complaint (or complaints as a second was submitted) were made by Martin Morton and had already been reported in the Wirral Globe under the headline Town hall blunder: Wrong paperwork sent to local government watchdog inquiry prior to Simon’s complaint about me.

One of these two councillors had been on the charging policy working group in 2005 that led to the overcharging policy, the other had been Cabinet Member for Social Care and Inclusion (which covers Social Services) during part of the period that the overcharging occurred.

The report referred to, the Martin Smith report, was reported to Cabinet on 14th April 2011, however it was not made public until the following year due to the Labour administration’s attempts to delay both its publication and the AKA report.

The relevant section of my email of 19th May to Cllr Gilchrist (and Cllrs Williams, Brighouse, Kelly, Bridson, Harney, Gilchrist, Mitchell and two other party members), is quoted below.

“Morale in the party is extremely low, the Chair and the Vice-Chair of the local party are currently (according to the Wirral Globe) under investigation on standards grounds following a decision by Wirral Council’s Independent Assessment Panel to refer the matter to Standards for England regarding their roles in the Social Services “special charging policy” and how Martin Morton was treated. This independent report (by now read by councillors but currently exempt) will be published within 2-5 months and will lead to a public discussion of their roles in this saga. Both are likely to be candidates in 2012 and the full reasons how and why they did things will have to be made clear to the public and party in the spirit of openness and accountability if we are to move on.”

Lastly Simon Holbrook refers to himself in the third person, which generally wouldn’t be the case if as claimed he was the author of the complaint. However it’s clear by the way it was written that somebody wanted me to stop asking questions by the way flat out denials were made regarding the standards complaints.

The decision notice of Standards Board for England with regards to Cllr Williams and Cllr Bridson back me up as to what the complaint was about. As it was re referred back to Standards for England following the paperwork mixup, there are earlier decision notices regarding Cllr Williams, Roberts and McLaughlin too.

Birkenhead County Court: An Interesting Afternoon | Mr John Brace v Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats

Birkenhead County Court: An Interesting Afternoon | Mr John Brace v Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats

Birkenhead County Court: An Interesting Afternoon | Mr John Brace v Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats

                          

I had an interesting afternoon at Birkenhead County Court as I was there for a case. Lady Luck seemed to be smiling on me as I was the first case (application hearing) starting at 2 p.m. in front of that particular judge.

Neither of the two defendants (Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of Birkenhead Liberal Democrats or Liberal Democrats (The Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats bothered to turn up and the Judge graciously granted the court order I requested. A thank you goes also to my McKenzie Friend, Leonora Brace for her help.

If only life was always this easy….

Edit: 11/11/2013 The above blog post didn’t contain much detail as it was an ongoing legal matter at the time that had not concluded. The application hearing related to who the defendants were. After the case had been filed the Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats (a David Allworthy replied on their behalf) had tried to get both defendants changed to Chris Fox (at the time this application was heard Chris Fox was a former Chief Executive of the Liberal Democrats).

However my application was to restore the original defendants in this case which were Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. The Judge agreed to do this in an unopposed application.

The matter went to a final hearing at the Birkenhead County Court on the 18th April 2012. Cllr Alan Brighouse appeared on behalf of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats (accompanied by Roy Wood). Deputy District Judge Ireland agreed with the plantiff (myself) that the defendants (Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats had breached s.7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 c.29 and a court order issued under s.7 ss.9 of the Data Protection Act 1998 c.29 was issued by the Birkenhead County Court in my favour ordering the defendants to comply.

Birkenhead County Court – Chaotic Scenes as Politics clashes with the law – Council Tax protester hits the news

I was going to write in answer to various Census questions people have posed but that can wait. There has been a large protest (and case adjourned) at the Birkenhead County Court leading to a number of arrests.

From reading between the lines in the article, those arrested were for breach of the peace, assaulting officers and obstructing police.

Let’s start off with a few words about Merseyside Police, however I will start this with the caveat that I wasn’t there but I have seen similar scenes before. Charges of assaulting officers is one of those charges used in order to get somebody in a van and a custody suite.

A previous case that I witnessed led to bruising of the person being arrested, four charges of assaulting a police officer (that were later dropped/dismissed in court). When the police face a mob of angry people at what they’re doing they can get their batons out and be quite emotional.

I’ve known a case where a person has been arrested for something trivial warranting say a £40 on the spot fine. However the police (who can in my experience be pretty brutal/heavy handed in sending a dozen cops to arrest one person dragging them out of a building without their feet touching the ground) must realise that their presence can inflame a situation especially where there is a crowd of people.

I’ve seen arrests where batons have been used and police have got very angry. Once police get emotional, their training can be forgotten in the heat of the moment. Often the charge of assaulting a police officer gets dropped or doesn’t stand up in court. Violence begets violence.

So getting back to the story and away from pure opinion on Merseyside Police, Wirral Council take someone to court for non-payment of Council Tax. Said person organises (or gets someone else to organise) a protest of six hundred people which turns into a riot. Court security can’t cope and call police. Police arrive and make arrests.

I’ll end on one thing. It’s a shame a Liberal Democrat government wasn’t elected, which would’ve abolished the Council Tax. Then all this time and expense, police time, Wirral Council legal department time, county court time etc etc wouldn’t have been required.

However, personally I think it is merely the start of what is to come.

There’s more about the protest here. I must admit that the article that refers to the protestors as BNP (who do hijack a lot of protests), hippies, dreadlocks, urban commandoes and those protesting “Judges are lizards” are certainly the strangest bunch of protesters I’ve heard about in a good while!

P.S. Judges in my experience always (try) in civil cases to treat litigants-in-person as fairly as possible to prevent grounds for appeal and in order to ensure justice. However as in all walks of live judges vary and some bad apples can bring the whole profession into disrepute.