WAITING FOR JUSTICE

Local Events, Planning, Commnunity discussions relating to Walton-on-Thames and the surrounding area

Moderators: moderator, musicalteapot

magnolia
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Posts: 3104
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 7:58 am

Re: WAITING FOR JUSTICE

Post by magnolia » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:57 pm

PaulH wrote:That's democracy, Mags.
OR fear of the alternative...
CognitiveDissonance
Contributor Level 2
Contributor Level 2
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:50 pm

Re: WAITING FOR JUSTICE

Post by CognitiveDissonance » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:03 am

:twisted:
User avatar
musicalteapot
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1115
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:06 am

Re: WAITING FOR JUSTICE

Post by musicalteapot » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:17 am

One the few points I have been able to find about 'the 'very special' considerations is that the development should benefit the whole community which of course, the so-called Sports Hub will not as the main beneficiaries are three or four
They key part of your sentence magnolia is the word "main". Not only are there "main" beneficiaries but there will be those that are not "main". Also, anyone can join Walton Athletics f they want to, regardless of income, so that counts as the community. I would fully expect that the stadium and pitches can be booked, but clearly the two football clubs are likely to get first dibs on booking. It would be nonsensical to build a facility and not utilise it as fully as possible.
magnolia
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Posts: 3104
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 7:58 am

Re: WAITING FOR JUSTICE

Post by magnolia » Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:12 am

PaulH
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:12 pm

Re: WAITING FOR JUSTICE

Post by PaulH » Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:31 pm

Richard Buxton is shocked.
In 25 years’ experience of these types of case I have never had any defendant, let alone a council, not immediately abide by a ruling of the High Court like this. The conduct is appalling, offensive to law-abiding citizens.
Whatevs, as the young folk say.
magnolia
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Posts: 3104
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 7:58 am

Re: WAITING FOR JUSTICE

Post by magnolia » Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:02 pm

PaulH wrote:Richard Buxton is shocked.
In 25 years’ experience of these types of case I have never had any defendant, let alone a council, not immediately abide by a ruling of the High Court like this. The conduct is appalling, offensive to law-abiding citizens.
Whatevs, as the young folk say.
http://www.cpresurrey.org.uk/2017/01/hi ... s-hub-case
Lewy
Veteran Contributor Level 3
Veteran Contributor Level 3
Posts: 640
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:20 pm

Re: WAITING FOR JUSTICE

Post by Lewy » Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:08 pm

magnolia wrote:
PaulH wrote:Richard Buxton is shocked.
In 25 years’ experience of these types of case I have never had any defendant, let alone a council, not immediately abide by a ruling of the High Court like this. The conduct is appalling, offensive to law-abiding citizens.
Whatevs, as the young folk say.
http://www.cpresurrey.org.uk/2017/01/hi ... s-hub-case
Solicitor in plea for more business shock. Hold the front page.

Or then again, don't bother.
Reynard
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:34 pm

Re: WAITING FOR JUSTICE

Post by Reynard » Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:48 pm

His legal costs must be generously funded by the Council. The loser pays the costs, and they're the ones who keep making mistakes... :roll:
User avatar
John O
Community Representative
Community Representative
Posts: 694
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:41 am

Re: WAITING FOR JUSTICE

Post by John O » Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:55 pm

Reynard wrote:His legal costs must be generously funded by the Council. The loser pays the costs, and they're the ones who keep making mistakes... :roll:
99.9% certain that each side only paid its own costs irrespective of the outcome.
Reynard
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:34 pm

Re: WAITING FOR JUSTICE

Post by Reynard » Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:01 pm

That's only until there's a legal judgement. In legal matters the loser usually pays the opponent's bill, based on the time-honoured principle that they could / should have conceded at Pre-action Protocol stage. Thereafter they are liable for the other side's costs...
User avatar
John O
Community Representative
Community Representative
Posts: 694
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:41 am

Re: WAITING FOR JUSTICE

Post by John O » Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:08 pm

Reynard wrote:That's only until there's a legal judgement. In legal matters the loser usually pays the opponent's bill, based on the time-honoured principle that they could / should have conceded at Pre-action Protocol stage. Thereafter they are liable for the other side's costs...
No, from memory from my time as Council Leader (because I asked!) in cases like these, costs are borne by each side throughout. So if the council had won, it would not have been able to claim from the applicants. I wouldn't be arguing this if I didn't feel being on safe ground. Perhaps a currently serving councillor will make inquiries and report back for confirmation one way or the other.
Reynard
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:34 pm

Re: WAITING FOR JUSTICE

Post by Reynard » Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:15 pm

That's the risk of taking legal action. It's not just a risk of winning or losing the judgement, it's the risk of paying both sets of legal costs if you lose. As the Planning permission was 'quashed' I presume the Council lost... :roll:
CognitiveDissonance
Contributor Level 2
Contributor Level 2
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:50 pm

Re: WAITING FOR JUSTICE

Post by CognitiveDissonance » Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:19 pm

John O wrote:
Reynard wrote:That's only until there's a legal judgement. In legal matters the loser usually pays the opponent's bill, based on the time-honoured principle that they could / should have conceded at Pre-action Protocol stage. Thereafter they are liable for the other side's costs...
No, from memory from my time as Council Leader (because I asked!) in cases like these, costs are borne by each side throughout. So if the council had won, it would not have been able to claim from the applicants. I wouldn't be arguing this if I didn't feel being on safe ground. Perhaps a currently serving councillor will make inquiries and report back for confirmation one way or the other.

Well I can't say I am surprised that you got incorrect legal advise from EBC !
User avatar
musicalteapot
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1115
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:06 am

Re: WAITING FOR JUSTICE

Post by musicalteapot » Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:05 am

It is down to the Court whether costs are awarded.
The judge will take into account how both sides acted during the case before deciding to allow or award costs.
Costs can also be protected via insurance. There is also now a costs cap for Judicial Reviews so the maximum liability of the council is £35,000.

Interestingly Richard Buxton is so shocked that he forgot that he wrote this on his own website:
If a JR claim is successful the usual result is that the decision is "quashed" or nullified. In turn this usually means that the decision has to be taken again. In planning cases, this means that the application will be reconsidered having rectified any defects found eg. with EIA or other required information. This can result in exactly the same decision being taken - so victories in JR can be pyrrhic.

If that were always the case, there would be no point in the procedure (or in us being in business). In practice, however, the effect of a decision being quashed and a new decision being taken, often following a proper procedure (such as having environmental impact assessment (EIA) or factors properly taken into account), means that at least a better, and often a substantively different, decision results. In other words you achieve something.
magnolia
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Posts: 3104
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 7:58 am

Re: WAITING FOR JUSTICE

Post by magnolia » Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:20 am

musicalteapot wrote:It is down to the Court whether costs are awarded.
The judge will take into account how both sides acted during the case before deciding to allow or award costs.
Costs can also be protected via insurance. There is also now a costs cap for Judicial Reviews so the maximum liability of the council is £35,000.

Interestingly Richard Buxton is so shocked that he forgot that he wrote this on his own website:
If a JR claim is successful the usual result is that the decision is "quashed" or nullified. In turn this usually means that the decision has to be taken again. In planning cases, this means that the application will be reconsidered having rectified any defects found eg. with EIA or other required information. This can result in exactly the same decision being taken - so victories in JR can be pyrrhic.

If that were always the case, there would be no point in the procedure (or in us being in business). In practice, however, the effect of a decision being quashed and a new decision being taken, often following a proper procedure (such as having environmental impact assessment (EIA) or factors properly taken into account), means that at least a better, and often a substantively different, decision results. In other words you achieve something.
So you've got it wrong again.

Buxton is shocked that the Council continued decimating wildlife and destroying the Green Belt even after a Judicial Review was applied for, granted & the Council was found to be acting without planning permission.

Look at the date (16/01/17). Prior to the meeting on 17th.

Edit
Although, on reading elsewhere that costs of the so-called Sports Hub have risen to an astounding £19 million & that most of this has already been paid to the contractors, it's hardly surprising work continued. Apparently, the cost of halting works would have cost £10 million.

No wonder some members of the previous administration have appeared so smug.

If the figures above are correct, the best part of £20 miliion pounds for three private clubs.
Post Reply