Ordsall Chord

[lejog]

The problem is that, assuming the flat crossing would be there to allow MOSI steam rides to cross the Chord, at eight trains an hour on the chord (minimum) there is never going to be enough time for the steam ride to get across.

Nothing has changed that I know of, would make it interesting come to a Sale of Access Rights (SOAR) panel if all of a sudden we gave a freight path away that was was a premise of the improvements. We sort of muddled our way through ATW to the airport as it is.

The following has been posted on the North Wales to Airport thread.

I've just posted on the Rochdale station thread that an Arriva spokesperson told us yesterday at a conference that the Blackburn - Rochdale - Vic service would run to the airport, in addition to the new Bradford service. Other reports are that Southport will lose its airport service!

Would our illustrious industry members like to comment on this service as a fourth tph running over the Chord?

 

[snowball]

The new issue of Modern Railways says on page 18 that Whitby is still trying for an injunction and NR have avoided "impacting on the structures which Mr Whitby feels should be protected".

 

[SodTheDrummer]

Traveled through Earlestown twice this week, once to Liverpool and today to Llandudno Jn, and thus saw two examples of the LMR's fine engineering/construction works namely the Sankey viaduct and Earlstown station buildings (The oldest station building in the world, which is still in passenger service) preserved and working on the modern railway complete with OLE in place (ok, so Earlstowns buildings could do with some attention, but they're still there..) Why cant Whitby see that old and new can coexist and work to deliver improvements for passengers, who, quite frankly aren't interested in heritage, they just want to be able to sit down on the way to work!
Bet he's never had to try and get on a Manchester bound train from Bolton at 8am - 10am in the morning..!!

 

[po8crg]

Whitby has a court date now: 12 and 13 April 2016, estimated as a ten-hour hearing (from the case tracker mentioned previously in the thread). Note that this is a "float list" hearing, ie there isn't a particular court or justice allocated; the lawyers will turn up on the day and hope that something else gets concluded early or postponed. In theory, it could not be heard, but float list cases do usually get dealt with on the planned day.

Went up on the case tracker on Tuesday, but I only spotted it today.

 

[misterredmist]

This may not end well...... there may be dis-chord in Court ?

I don't like what he is doing one bit ,

FWIW I think Whitby is selfish, stubborn and misguided....... and has no consideration for the great many people who will be inconvenienced should his appeal succeed.

 

[HowardGWR]

This may not end well...... there may be dis-chord in Court ?

I don't like what he is doing one bit ,

FWIW I think Whitby is selfish, stubborn and misguided....... and has no consideration for the great many people who will be inconvenienced should his appeal succeed.

If he succeeds I find it difficult to recognise how he is 'misguided'. One could say the court is misguided, but that's all and that won't get anyone anywhere.

Either the SoS has acted unlawfully or he hasn't.

 

[snowball]

Whitby has a court date now: 12 and 13 April 2016,

Unchanged since 7 Feb (see #1132).

 

[Corporal Jones]

Litigation is ruinously expensive. Who is financing Whitby?

 

[furnessvale]

Litigation is ruinously expensive. Who is financing Whitby?

I don't know who is paying his side of the fees but it will certainly cost Network Rail.

Apparently he has some sort of cover from the court that when he finally loses, Network Rail can only claim back a fraction of their legal fees.

 

[WatcherZero]

Seen some renders of the extra platforms for Salford Central, they will be higher than the existing platforms and there will be a disabled ramp from one platform face up to the other.

 

[HowardGWR]

I don't know who is paying his side of the fees but it will certainly cost Network Rail.

Apparently he has some sort of cover from the court that when he finally loses, Network Rail can only claim back a fraction of their legal fees.

NR isn't involved in this case.

 

[furnessvale]

NR isn't involved in this case.

Fair enough, whoever he is facing then.

Added: Everything I read talks about NR so who do you believe hr is facing in court?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Apparently he has some sort of cover from the court that when he finally loses, Network Rail can only claim back a fraction of their legal fees.

Is there anyone with legal knowledge who can say with certainty the exact cover that Whitby has from the court, that is stated above. Under what legal terminology where will such a matter be found.

 

[furnessvale]

Is there anyone with legal knowledge who can say with certainty the exact cover that Whitby has from the court, that is stated above. Under what legal terminology where will such a matter be found.

It was mentioned earlier in this thread but as the thread is 83 pages long I will let anyone who is interested look for it!

Google tells me it is a Protective Costs Order and it is granted by the court to limit Whitby's potential legal liability.

 

[snowball]

Fair enough, whoever he is facing then.

Added: Everything I read talks about NR so who do you believe hr is facing in court?

The Secretary of State for Transport. He made the Order authorising construction of the Chord and that is what Whitby is challenging.

 

[Intercity91]

The Secretary of State for Transport. He made the Order authorising construction of the Chord and that is what Whitby is challenging.

I'm getting confused - I thought his latest court challenge was against the refusal to right of appeal? Has he got leave to appeal now or is that what this next case is about?

 

[snowball]

I'm getting confused - I thought his latest court challenge was against the refusal to right of appeal? Has he got leave to appeal now or is that what this next case is about?

Whitby won the right to appeal a few weeks ago, when a judge made a decision "on the papers" (i.e. without a hearing). This is the only decision that has taken place since October when he lost his judicial review into the SoS's original decision.

His substantive appeal is to be heard in April, but I don't know if his exact grounds of appeal have yet been made public. Maybe his team hasn't decided them yet.

 

[edwin_m]

Whitby won the right to appeal a few weeks ago, when a judge made a decision "on the papers" (i.e. without a hearing). This is the only decision that has taken place since October when he lost his judicial review into the SoS's original decision.

His substantive appeal is to be heard in April, but I don't know if his exact grounds of appeal have yet been made public. Maybe his team hasn't decided them yet.

Would he have been granted a right to appeal if he hadn't submitted some grounds to claim he had an arguable case?

 

[snowball]

Would he have been granted a right to appeal if he hadn't submitted some grounds to claim he had an arguable case?

On reflection you must be right.

 

[Intercity91]

Whitby won the right to appeal a few weeks ago, when a judge made a decision "on the papers" (i.e. without a hearing). This is the only decision that has taken place since October when he lost his judicial review into the SoS's original decision.

His substantive appeal is to be heard in April, but I don't know if his exact grounds of appeal have yet been made public. Maybe his team hasn't decided them yet.

Thanks, missed that he'd been grated the right to appeal. What an exciting saga this is. Dread to think how much money this is all going to waste.....

 

[Howardh]

Thanks, missed that he'd been grated the right to appeal. What an exciting saga this is. Dread to think how much money this is all going to waste.....

...and time :cry:

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Google tells me it is a Protective Costs Order and it is granted by the court to limit Whitby's potential legal liability.

Given the fact that Legal Aid in itself appears to be subject to a tightening of availability, how is it that such a matter of a Protective Costs Order can still be made these days? To what type of appellant is that normally granted, when large amounts of money will have to be borne by the legal budgetary allowance that will be made available to finance such a matter.

 

[spongsdad]

Given the fact that Legal Aid in itself appears to be subject to a tightening of availability, how is it that such a matter of a Protective Costs Order can still be made these days? To what type of appellant is that normally granted, when large amounts of money will have to be borne by the legal budgetary allowance that will be made available to finance such a matter.

A Protective Costs Order is better known as a "Jobs for the Boys Order". It enables wealthy lawyers to cream off more taxpayers money and to cause additional costs to the authorities and delay and inconvenience to the hapless commuters. It's absolutely risible.

 

[po8crg]

Protective Costs Orders are made in cases where there is, in the view of the judge granting the order, a substantial public interest in the proceedings, and where the applicant has no private interest in the outcome.

So Whitby will have demonstrated that he would not profit from any possible result (ie even if Option 15 is adopted, he won't get paid) and will have convinced the judge that there is a public interest in this being tested in court.

Note that this does not limit his liability to his own costs, so he will be paying his own lawyers (unless they're working pro bono); it just means that the combination of court costs and the legal costs of the other side (which are being met by the DfT in this case) cannot be charged to Whitby beyond the level of the PCO.

Whitby will probably have taken out an insurance policy to the PCO limit (that's the usual practice in these cases) so he can keep going as long as he can afford his own lawyers.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Protective Costs Orders are made in cases where there is, in the view of the judge granting the order, a substantial public interest in the proceedings, and where the applicant has no private interest in the outcome.

So Whitby will have demonstrated that he would not profit from any possible result (ie even if Option 15 is adopted, he won't get paid) and will have convinced the judge that there is a public interest in this being tested in court.

What I do note is the part of your first paragraph that I have emboldened concerning the private interest of Whitby, as he appears to feel that in his eyes, his status certainly warrants the terminology of "private interest" as it was that very matter that has seen these legal dalliances go on and on.

 

[po8crg]

What I do note is the part of your first paragraph that I have emboldened concerning the private interest of Whitby, as he appears to feel that in his eyes, his status certainly warrants the terminology of "private interest" as it was that very matter that has seen these legal dalliances go on and on.

Yes, the problem here is the legal definition of "private interest" is different from the common definition. Legally, it means: would he directly profit from the order being given one way or the other.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Yes, the problem here is the legal definition of "private interest" is different from the common definition. Legally, it means: would he directly profit from the order being given one way or the other.

It's fairly obvious to those of us with more than a cursory interest in the Ordsall Chord that he does stand to gain directly from the order being given one way or another.

This will not be the last time he gets involved in trying to disrupt the redevelopment of historical sites of interest, he's putting himself out there now as some sort of caped crusader defending, in this case, fairly mediocre old architecture from the march of 21st century progress. It's only a matter of time before he finds himself being hired by other parties who want to protect other historical buildings from the march of the demolition firms or developers.

He's clearly not going to get any revenue earning gigs with Government sponsored departments, local authorities and so on, so he's going to have to rely on being a hired gun dealing with historical structures and buildings, the outcome of this case is going to have a material impact on his reputation and employability. It's all about Whitby's ego, as I've said before.

 

[po8crg]

IMO, the biggest problem with PCOs is that they are granted by the initial judge at first hearing and then not reviewed. There may be a substantial public interest in a judicial review, but appealing to the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court on thin (but legally justifiable) grounds might not reach the substantial public interest standard, and could just be stubbornness on the applicant's part.

But there's a single PCO which includes all appeals, so, as long as the applicant can pay his lawyers (or convince them to carry on pro bono) then he can string it along through stage after stage.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's fairly obvious to those of us with more than a cursory interest in the Ordsall Chord that he does stand to gain directly from the order being given one way or another.

This will not be the last time he gets involved in trying to disrupt the redevelopment of historical sites of interest, he's putting himself out there now as some sort of caped crusader defending, in this case, fairly mediocre old architecture from the march of 21st century progress. It's only a matter of time before he finds himself being hired by other parties who want to protect other historical buildings from the march of the demolition firms or developers.

Legally, that's "indirectly".

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes, the problem here is the legal definition of "private interest" is different from the common definition. Legally, it means: would he directly profit from the order being given one way or the other.

Legally, can his reputation be deemed something from which he could be said to be directly profiting from if that can be said to be an asset that can have an indirect monetary value in any future consultancy tasks that he undertakes in his name only.

 

[HowardGWR]

Legally, can his reputation be deemed something from which he could be said to be directly profiting from if that can be said to be an asset that can have an indirect monetary value in any future consultancy tasks that he undertakes in his name only.

No. Judges are not futurologists. Are you having us on with these questions Paul?