Ordsall Chord

[Darren R]

'Vexatious Litigant' are the words that sprang to my mind earlier when I read that he is about to test the courts' patience still further. As I understand it, either Network Rail could apply for an order against him or the justiciary do it themselves becasue they are sick of the sight of him. Unfortunately the order would only be in place for two years. Still long enough to get spades in the ground though!

 

[WatcherZero]

Is the matter in the public domain that are the legal costs incurred by Mark Whitby to date on the matter of objections to the Ordsall Chord?

Well his personal legal costs aren't going to be in the public domain but I would imagine it was into early six figures.

 

[lejog]

Confirmed as correct though.

Confirmed by whom, may I ask?

Although Whitby was allowed to appeal by the High Court judgement, I thought he had a deadline of 21 days to lodge an appeal with the Appeals Court. With the original decision being made on 14th October, this has now passed. (I believe 21days is the norm anyway, I would welcome any corrections).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not the most dependable journalistic source.

Indeed, if I'm correct about the 21 day deadline, Manchester Confidential's article was published two days after it expired.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Confirmed by whom, may I ask?

You can ask.

You will have to trust me that the confirmee would be officially notified of Mr Whitby's application to appeal.

 

[lejog]

You can ask.

You will have to trust me that the confirmee would be officially notified of Mr Whitby's application to appeal.

You don't have to be officially notified about applications to the Appeal Court, they are in the public domain - see the Court Of Appeal Case Tracker. Perhaps it's me, but I can't find any entries for any application to appeal from Mr Whitby.

And having checked, the deadline for appeals from the High Court does appear to be 21 days (Form 202), as it says at the top of the application form you must act quickly.

Or is Mr Whitby planning an alternative approach?

 

[Viscount702]

In the Judgement on the Judicial Review he was refused a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. That being so I believe his only course is to apply to the Supreme Court to see if they will allow an appeal if he can show justification.

In Judicial review case there is usually a requirement to let the other party know what your intentions are not only about the initial review but also any subsequent actions

 

[lejog]

In the Judgement on the Judicial Review he was refused a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. That being so I believe his only course is to apply to the Supreme Court to see if they will allow an appeal if he can show justification.

In Judicial review case there is usually a requirement to let the other party know what your intentions are not only about the initial review but also any subsequent actions

Are you sure? The judgement as linked to and quoted in post 735 concludes

78 The claim for judicial review was arguable, and so I grant permission, but dismiss all three claims

which I perhaps incorrectly took to mean that permission to appeal was granted. I see no other reference to the right to appeal in the judgement.

However if you are correct, then Whitby would only have still only have 21 days to lodge his appeal for the right to appeal, unless he can prove exceptional circumstances. After 21 days without an appeal, parties are allowed to view the original judges verdict as final.

 

[simonw]

Are you sure? The judgement as linked to and quoted in post 735 concludes



which I perhaps incorrectly took to mean that permission to appeal was granted. I see no other reference to the right to appeal in the judgement.

However if you are correct, then Whitby would only have still only have 21 days to lodge his appeal for the right to appeal, unless he can prove exceptional circumstances. After 21 days without an appeal, parties are allowed to view the original judges verdict as final.

My reading is paragraph 78 is referring to para 4. I.e. that it was correct to allow the review but that the judge dismisses all the arguments.

 

[Viscount702]

In the judgement linked to above (which I hadn't seen) there is no specific reference to an appeal being refused. However previous reports as opposed to the judgements had said leave to appeal was refused.
The judgement does yet seem to be on the Courts website that I can see.

 

[WatcherZero]

I think that's referring to the court of appeal case was itself an appeal of a decision, the judge reviewed the case and found against the 3 arguments.

Appeals to the Supreme court only seem to be published several months or so later so would be some time before they appeared on its website unless it went straight into an active case.

 

[kevconnor]

In the judgement linked to above (which I hadn't seen) there is no specific reference to an appeal being refused. However previous reports as opposed to the judgements had said leave to appeal was refused.
The judgement does yet seem to be on the Courts website that I can see.

Full judgement for the High Court Case is available here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/2804.html

Mr Whitby can still petition the Court of Appeal directly for the right to an appeal or alternatively for select arguments can petition directly to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal is more likely route at this stage but we will not know the outcome of this until either something substantive happens (such as the public listing for a hearing) or one of the sides makes some kind of a press release. I can't even be certain what may be announced if the Court of Appeal denies the petition to appeal so much of what we learn may come from hearsay and speculation.

 

[lejog]

I think that's referring to the court of appeal case was itself an appeal of a decision, the judge reviewed the case and found against the 3 arguments.

Appeals to the Supreme court only seem to be published several months or so later so would be some time before they appeared on its website unless it went straight into an active case.

An appeal (for permission to appeal) is NOT normally to the Supreme Court, its to the Appeals Court - see https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part52#52.3

(3) Where the lower court refuses an application for permission to appeal—

(a) a further application for permission may be made to the appeal court; and

(b) the order refusing permission will specify—

(i) the court to which any further application for permission should be made; and

(ii) the level of the judge who should hear the application.

The Appeals Court does have a facility to track applications on its website, that I linked to earlier and it shows no application to appeal from Mr Whitby (whether that be an appeal or an appeal for permission to appeal).

 

[kevconnor]

The Appeals Court does have a facility to track applications on its website, that I linked to earlier and it shows no application to appeal from Mr Whitby (whether that be an appeal or an appeal for permission to appeal).

Would you have any knowledge of in what circumstances and at what stage of the process any appeals would be listed publicly?

 

[lejog]

Full judgement for the High Court Case is available here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/2804.html

Yes this was posted back in post 735

Mr Whitby can still petition the Court of Appeal directly for the right to an appeal or alternatively for select arguments can petition directly to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal is more likely route at this stage

As I've just posted (with a link to the Rules of Appeal), unless the High Court judge specifies an alternative court in their order denying permission to appeal, Mr Whitby has to go to the Appeals Court.

but we will not know the outcome of this until either something substantive happens (such as the public listing for a hearing) or one of the sides makes some kind of a press release. I can't even be certain what may be announced if the Court of Appeal denies the petition to appeal so much of what we learn may come from hearsay and speculation.

The Court Of Appeal has a perfectly adequate Case Tracker, allowing the tracking of applications and appeals, from the time an an application is lodged until 31 days after the Appeal is heard.

 

[Jonny]

No wonder infrastructure costs such a fortune in this country. The only beneficiaries are the lawyers and the vexatious litigants. Shame on Mark Whitby.

Indeed, they are often spinning a good yarn about "heritage" relating to some old lump of stone.

Also the consultants are creaming it off... such as Mark Whitby. Perhaps professional busybody would be a better word, at least in his case.

Besides, wouldn't his "alternative" create additional conflicts (e.g. between Eccles > Victoria and Victoria > Deansgate) that simply would not occur with the preferred route?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh, and as for Mark Whitby's lawyers...

http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk
Richard Buxton is a firm of solicitors based in Cambridge and London, UK. We help you use the law to protect the environment you live in.

(Emphasis mine)

 

[wadia13]

So no sign that Whitby's appeal has been publicly listed and he had 21 days to appeal which is already past? The status remains very unclear. Meanwhile, does work on the Chord have to stop again?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Besides, wouldn't his "alternative" create additional conflicts (e.g. between Eccles > Victoria and Victoria > Deansgate) that simply would not occur with the preferred route?

Yes, all the proposed Liverpool - Leeds via Victoria would cross all the Leeds - Airport via Victoria services, and create a new head-on conflict between the Leeds - Airport via Victoria services and the Blackpool/Barrow - Airport services; this is a much higher risk layout than the current preferred layout.

 

[anorack 1]

Talking to one of the construction workers today. He said they have started the major enabling works, with full construction to begin in early New Year.

He didn't know anything about a new legal challenge from Whitby, the judicial review being his last chance.

Where have Man. Con. got there info. from?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Anyone else think that the new viaduct on the chord ought to be named "The Mark Whitby Viaduct" as a punishment for all the time and money he's wasted?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Anyone else think that the new viaduct on the chord ought to be named "The Mark Whitby Viaduct" as a punishment for all the time and money he's wasted?

I prefer not to give - rhymes with Farce and foals any recognition at all ( hope that gets around the mods

 

[wadia13]

You don't have to be officially notified about applications to the Appeal Court, they are in the public domain - see the Court Of Appeal Case Tracker. Perhaps it's me, but I can't find any entries for any application to appeal from Mr Whitby.

And having checked, the deadline for appeals from the High Court does appear to be 21 days (Form 202), as it says at the top of the application form you must act quickly.

Or is Mr Whitby planning an alternative approach?

Thanks for providing the case tracker link. I typed in Whitby and there are 2 cases "The Queen on the application of Whitby v The Secretary of State for Transport" and case type is 'permission to appeal'.

 

[snowball]

User "anorack 1" on Skyscrapercity has pointed out that the Case Tracker linked above in this thread now shows two cases if you search for "Whitby". You can click on the case numbers. They seem to be applications for permission to appeal.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A large worksite is under construction in the vee of the Bolton/Liverpool lines west of Salford Central.
Also along the north side of the viaduct towards Ordsall Lane.
Presumably for the Chord project.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I prefer not to give - rhymes with Farce and foals any recognition at all ( hope that gets around the mods

Just think how much it'd wind him up though...!

 

[kevconnor]

Just think how much it'd wind him up though...!

Maybe we can just invite him to cut the ribbon when its opened and when he fails to turn up for it do a have I got news for you job on it (a la roy hattersley) and replace him with a suitably appropriate inanimate object.

 

[SodTheDrummer]

Yes, all the proposed Liverpool - Leeds via Victoria would cross all the Leeds - Airport via Victoria services, and create a new head-on conflict between the Leeds - Airport via Victoria services and the Blackpool/Barrow - Airport services; this is a much higher risk layout than the current preferred layout.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but this guy seems to be favouring heritage over safety? I'm all for preserving historic buildings where feasible, but seriously....

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just think how much it'd wind him up though...!

I do so wonder if this person would be deemed to be a likely candidate to be judged as worthy of going into "Room 101" on a certain television programme?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but this guy seems to be favouring heritage over safety? I'm all for preserving historic buildings where feasible, but seriously....

Risk in this case is on train performance, his design would still have to meet the necessary signalling and track requirements for safety, in doing so though, it creates the potential for more disruption in the event of a failure and reduces capacity, with the effect that his proposal may be a Trojan horse to have the whole scheme scrapped.

It's getting difficult to tell if this is genuinely about heritage though, Whitby came up with the alternative design as he's a civil engineer who was involved with the project, it's entirely possible he's trying to salvage his own reputation as he is upset his design wasn't chosen and he possibly realises his design was far from optimum for the site, so getting everything cancelled suits his own professional needs.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I do so wonder if this person would be deemed to be a likely candidate to be judged as worthy of going into "Room 101" on a certain television programme?

As rail enthusiasts, many forum members (yourself and I included!) are already in there I think...

 

[andyb2706]

Forgive me if I am wrong but Mr. Whitby's plan is now a total non-starter even if he can put the block on Network Rails plan.

Having had a look at the plans for the chosen route and Mr. Whitby's plan doesn't Mr Whitby's plan mean that the current Chat Moss line having to be moved slightly North Westish. onto land that has been given the go ahead to build Middlewood Locks residential and commercial development which the Chinese are investing in heavily.

Apologies if this is right and has already been mentioned.