Would bankruptcy in these circumstances actually force the sale of the primary residence?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Altnabreac station and the various legal disputes around it
- Thread starter alex17595
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Well, the Court of Session usually only deals with civil claims of £100k+. The listing price for station cottage in 2014 was £160k. Let's go with £200k in today's valuation.
If the claim EE makes exceeds the property value, then it's going to be taken, eventually.
If the claim EE makes doesn't exceed it, the couple are presumably going to need a mortgage, but I don't know if either of them work at the moment, so I'm not sure what their affordability would look like?
This does assume however that they don't currently work, and that they don't have a stash of money somewhere. Nobody really knows this.
I can't imagine EE will be claiming for a small sum - they're claiming for the cost of taking materials to their mast by helicopter because the couple blocked the level crossing. They're also claiming, and are provisionally awarded, almost all of their legal costs. EE are represented by Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP, who I suspect don't come cheap.
We have to wait to find out exactly what the claimed amounts are, but I think there's a real possibility they may exceed, or come close to, the value of the house.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Sequestration in Scotland, it is common to force the equity held in a property to be used to pay debts, yes. It's not a given, but it is common, particularly if there aren't any vulnerable dependents.
What is slightly odd about this is that Appleby is named on the deeds, but Howe isn't. Howe is however on the receiving end of the EE claim, so I imagine a court would permit the sale of the property, but it is a bit unusual.
No, they are many things but cheap is not one of them.
Undiscovered
Member
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 544
The cynic in me wonders if there will be 'technical issues' with the internet access, this postponing things even further?
I can't imagine that would go down well with the Court. Not least because they should have excellent 4G/5G coverage thanks to a nearby EE base station.
pokemonsuper9
Established Member
It's probably the most expensive data tower compared to number of local residents, especially if you consider the legal costs.I can't imagine that would go down well with the Court. Not least because they should have excellent 4G/5G coverage thanks to a nearby EE base station.
SuspectUsual
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 6,675
I can't imagine that would go down well with the Court. Not least because they should have excellent 4G/5G coverage thanks to a nearby EE base station.
I can quite imagine them using any provider other than ee or their associated companies, even if it meant having a rubbish connection
And if I was EE I would have provided them with free equipment specifically so that the "couldn't get connected" excuse carried no weight.
EYFanatic
Member
EE Lawyer: My Lord, I beg to point out to the court that the claims of no internet and it not being strong enough for virtual calls is silly given that we have documented evidence that using EE broadband one can land a jumbo jet from a four bedroom surburban home in Somersham. I request this be taken into account and if proof is required by the other party to this case, we have Kevin Bacon on standbyI can't imagine that would go down well with the Court. Not least because they should have excellent 4G/5G coverage thanks to a nearby EE base station.
D6130
Established Member
....or even Kevin Booth?
norbitonflyer
Established Member
It is 18 miles from Scotscalder to Forsinard. Providing a block post at the mid point would seem a good idea - if for no other reason that reliable telegraphic communication over 18 miles with 19th century technology might be challenging. And a block post needs someone to run it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Was he? I thought the section beyong Helmsdale, and certainly the bit in Caithness, was owned by the Sinclair family (one of whom was later ennobled (after WW2) as Lord Thurso)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It may be significant that Ms Howe is never referred to as Mrs Appleby, although Mr Appleby has referred to her as his wife. This may become significant if costs and damages are awarded in any of the cases, as the property is registered in Mr Appleby's name alone.
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I wonder if in days of yore, this saga would have made good script material for that Scottish legal TV programme that featured Ian Cuthbertson?
D6130
Established Member
Sutherland's Law - based in the fictitious West Highland town of Glendoran and filmed in Oban. Most, if not all, episodes are available on YouTube, complete with the stirring theme music....Land of the Mountain and the Flood by Hamish McCunn.
Not a particularly enlightening first day at the EE hearing. I have to duck out, but the gist of it is Howe initiated a debate and some poring over old Ordnance Survey maps regarding whether the level crossing was actually a footpath. Comments from Lord Lake were made regarding it not being an opportunity to introduce new evidence, but interrogate the evidence already accepted.
For anyone newly-following this, the opinion given by Lord Lake back in October: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media...ed-against-ian-thomas-appleby-and-another.pdf
For anyone newly-following this, the opinion given by Lord Lake back in October: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media...ed-against-ian-thomas-appleby-and-another.pdf
Restarting 09:30 tomorrow.
Singlespeed
Member
In the book 'twenty six years reminiscing Scottish grouse moors' 1874 season, page 51, building a lodge near to the proposed station is mentioned being more convenient than Dalnawillan lodge.
Then in 1876, page 62 a small lodge near to Altnabreac Station, containing kitchen, parlour and five bedrooms.
The Lochdhu Lodge of today seems to be predated by a smaller lodge nearby, but that could be on the same site.
Singlespeed
Member
The historic drovers path which pre dated the railway can be seen on this map. There's a sheepfold where the path splits and the two routes ford the river. Both routes being west of the sheepfold.
Once the railway was built, the path disappeared from later surveys. However the sheepfold was still shown and can be seen on satellite view about half way between the level crossing and the rail bridge over the river Thurso.
The forestry road does follow the old route once its part way up Station Hill. But not at the crossing area or anywhere on the south side of the railway line.
Singlespeed
Member
I don't think anyone has previously tried to say the level crossing was the old footpath.
It's certainly not been brought up in court before yesterday.
Today's session is so far more interesting. Howe appears to be cross-examining in the manner I'd expect from a criminal counsel. It's a very methodical approach to agree facts, very concise which is nice, though Lord Lake has already intervened to prevent a tangent about a specific question going on when the witness had seemingly already answered it. The witness in question is also attending remotely, quite possible from inside an industrial basement by the looks of it! Never really thought about it before, but must be a strange day at work normally working on mobile masts, to be asked to attend court to talk about mineral rights and railway crossings.
For some context, we are currently down to the level of detail where we are debating whether different parties swore at each other, and whether a vehicle 'bumped' into a gate or 'crashed' into it.
For some context, we are currently down to the level of detail where we are debating whether different parties swore at each other, and whether a vehicle 'bumped' into a gate or 'crashed' into it.
The historic drovers path which pre dated the railway can be seen on this map. There's a sheepfold where the path splits and the two routes ford the river. Both routes being west of the sheepfold.
Once the railway was built, the path disappeared from later surveys. However the sheepfold was still shown and can be seen on satellite view about half way between the level crossing and the rail bridge over the river Thurso.
The forestry road does follow the old route once its part way up Station Hill. But not at the crossing area or anywhere on the south side of the railway line.
The level crossing doesn't even appear on the OS 6 inch map surveyed in 1960* so presumably it and the forestry road post-date even that fairly recent update. The 6 inch map does show a footpath - possibly the route of the old drover's path - heading up Station Hill, but it shows it starting at the railway bridge over the Sleach Water, so completely the wrong side of the sheepfold for the level crossing to have been constructed to accommodate the historic path.
It might be that, given that early maps indicate that the river was fordable in the past, then anyone wanting to follow the drover's path once the railway had been built could have crossed under the railway at the point where it crosses over the river, and the level crossing was only built when forestry traffic needed to be accommodated. In fact, it may well still be possible today to cross the railway on foot by fording the river beneath the overbridge, if you felt that way inclined.
It should be borne in mind that the presence of a footpath on OS maps in Scotland does not necessarily indicate any kind of right of way which the railway would have been legally required to accommodate. The online map of heritage paths maintained by the Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society (ScotWays) does show the drover's path crossing the railway at the site of the current level crossing, but it looks to me as if that is based on the route of the current forestry road rather than the historic path. I would suggest that how the path was routed prior to the level crossing being built, and what access rights might or might not have been associated with it, cannot reliably be determined from just poring over old OS maps.
Scotland’s National Catalogue of Rights of Way (CROW), which includes written information about rights of way in Scotland as well as 1:50,000 mapping, would appear to be the definitive source for such things. CROW is maintained by ScotWays; it is not accessible to the general public, but they will advise whether their records show any rights of way running across a piece of land - for a fee. If neither party has consulted ScotWays on the matter then I would suggest that any argument put forward by either party regarding the current status of the land occupied by the current level crossing, or crossed by the historic drover's path, would be based on incomplete foundations.
* Awkwardly, the area around the river crossings, the old sheepfold and the station sits across the junction of three map sheets in that series. The other two are here and here.
Last edited:
Singlespeed
Member
I believe it was Fountain Forestry that built the haul road and level crossing.
Being as John Archibald Sinclair sold the estate to Fountain Forestry Limited on 7th Sep. 1984 and subsequently the estate was split up and sold as smaller parcels in Jun/July 1985, that's a short time frame for its construction.
Being as John Archibald Sinclair sold the estate to Fountain Forestry Limited on 7th Sep. 1984 and subsequently the estate was split up and sold as smaller parcels in Jun/July 1985, that's a short time frame for its construction.
Have more detailed notes from today but given the day ended with a witness who is to return tomorrow to continue cross-examination, probably best not publishing those.
Got through a lot of witnesses today, mainly from EE/their contractors and subcontractors. The current witness is a level crossing manager for Network Rail, and current topic being determining who exactly the 'authorised users' of the level crossing are, and what their rights/responsibilities are (e.g. locking gates).
Got through a lot of witnesses today, mainly from EE/their contractors and subcontractors. The current witness is a level crossing manager for Network Rail, and current topic being determining who exactly the 'authorised users' of the level crossing are, and what their rights/responsibilities are (e.g. locking gates).
Egg Centric
Established Member
@styles are these videocalls something we can just "recreationally" pop in and out of while at work (and if so where?) or do we need to contact court etc?
Sadly, the EE case has the capability to destroy this couple. To add insult to injury, a criminal conviction from their upcoming trial could render both with a fine and or Prison. They would have to pay any fines from the inevitable sale of their house if EE were to win a large settlement.
I think the Court would insist on their fine being paid before EE swallow the rest up.
If they come away with this with anything left, they'll be doing well and all for what, their pride and their perceived point of principle?
There's a side of me that wants them to win this civil case, just to stick it to the big Corporation but it sounds ominous.
I think the Court would insist on their fine being paid before EE swallow the rest up.
If they come away with this with anything left, they'll be doing well and all for what, their pride and their perceived point of principle?
There's a side of me that wants them to win this civil case, just to stick it to the big Corporation but it sounds ominous.
zwk500
Veteran Member
In this instance, what has the big corporation done that's unreasonable?
Nothing, by the looks of it and they may have had to spend a lot of unnecessary money but they are a multi million pound company. They will have excess in budgets for unforseen expense but they also have every right to chase down those who caused the expense.
While the romantic tale of the underdog defeating the legal giant of a large company is enjoyable, it seems inappropriate here.
The large company was trying to do infrastructure works that would benefit the local community (or enable the mind control chips that Bill Gates implanted in everyone as part of the master plan of the lizard people) and these two people took action against it from a decision made against a questionable background.
So on the one hand, you are sticking it to the evil mega corporation.
But at the same time, harming local communities.
Unless it could be proved that EE had zero right to be there and did something super sketchy to try and do it, or were trying to erect it slap bang in the middle of their garden, I cannot see any way that this can play out as a victory for the couple.
AND from a societal point of view, having a situation where a couple of people can interfere with things to this degree, then having a court ruling in their favour would really go down the slippery slope.
The large company was trying to do infrastructure works that would benefit the local community (
So on the one hand, you are sticking it to the evil mega corporation.
But at the same time, harming local communities.
Unless it could be proved that EE had zero right to be there and did something super sketchy to try and do it, or were trying to erect it slap bang in the middle of their garden, I cannot see any way that this can play out as a victory for the couple.
AND from a societal point of view, having a situation where a couple of people can interfere with things to this degree, then having a court ruling in their favour would really go down the slippery slope.
Within reason. I don't believe they share the video call links on the website as they don't want it to get abused, they kinda want to know who's there, and they also are trying to ensure witnesses don't sit in on each others' evidence giving sessions to ensure a fair trial. So really you ought to email commercial@scotcourts.gov.uk first thing in the morning or the specific clerk (currently Dorothy Allen dallen@scotcourts.gov.uk) to ask for the link. Tell them what case number and that it's the court of session. The links for the court of session are generic but yeah I wouldn't post them publicly.
As for popping in and out, that's trickier. The clerk is often busy with other things so you're best off joining in the morning or about lunch time when they're expecting people to come in. Otherwise you might find yourself sat in a virtual lobby for quite a while!
Last edited:
"Big corporation" isn't a synonym for "evil" or "bad", as much as some people like to think that it is.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.
Unless they win the case or unless the judge takes pity and disallows the winner from claiming costs, the legal fees from EE will bankrupt them.
I make no comment on the ongoing proceedings, but sometimes this situation actually ends up prolonging matters further. If you know you're going to lose everything anyway then there is a perverse incentive to dig your heels in and be as awkward and as obstructive as possible, try and make it a pyhrric victory for the other side.