6024 EGM

Its worth noting that a likely reason why the expenses are so great is a thing called "uplift", where in no win no fee cases the winning lawyers are allowed to charge up to double the actual costs to make up for the cases they lose. This means that on balance the lawyers are never out of pocket because they effectively get paid for the cases they lose as well as the ones they win. Perhaps even more to the point it would seem to mean they have no incentive to minimise the costs of cases they are involved in. I'm struggling to think of other areas of business where this is the case - there probably aren't too many...

 

Mmm, but I don't think that m'learned friends (ha!) will take on very many cases where they don't think they've got a better than even chance of winning...

 

Re: Sunday Telegraph 6024

The Society members voted to indemnify it's officers before any trial occured.

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, the loco has been sold in order for it continue operating on the mainline. The members at the last EGM wished (from what I could tell) to see the loco continue to operate on the mainline, rather than languish in some siding/shed for years whilst the necessary funds were accrued to overhaul the engine.

Trouble is, that's not as dramatic (to various quarters) as what's being written about.

 

Re: Sunday Telegraph 6024

I understand what you are saying, however I cannot understand why. If as you say the loco was sold only so it can continue operating on the mainline, the society must have accrued members subscriptions and tour fees since the last overhaul, surely that has gone a long way into the overhaul fund?

 

Re: Sunday Telegraph 6024

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, reform of our daft libel laws thankfully seems to be on the cards:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8466297.stm

http://www.libelreform.org/index.php

Currently, it can cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds to sucessfully defend a libel case, even more if you lose of course, as in this case.

 

Re: Sunday Telegraph 6024

About time too...

 

Re: Sunday Telegraph 6024

I don't think itsthe law: its the lawyers... I've had outright lies published about me and its a very unpleasant experience even when its not something that directly affects your ability to make a living. When you've been through that sort of experience you tend to be in favour of anything that might discourage that sort of behaviour. If you consider the scummier end of the newspaper business then they can make hundreds of thousands in increased sales by printing a nice juicy lie about the right person. If the remedy is then an apology, then they'll probably get increased circulation from that too, so there's plenty of motivation for them to print more lies if that sort of change to the law goes through. And I think the bias should be in favour of the victim of the libel, not the perpetrator: grief if you can't be sure its true what are you doing publishing it?

So no, the problem is not the law, nor the result. The problem is that the lawyers are winding up hundreds of thousands of pounds costs and income on the simplest of situations, and there seems to be no motivation at all for them not do so. So reforming the libel law is, in my opinion, aiming at the wrong target. The need is to reform the lawyers.

 

Re: Sunday Telegraph 6024

If the locomotive has only been sold to ensure its continued operation on the mainline, how was the society going to pay the legal costs and damages?

 

Everybody is entitled to justice, if you are a victim of libel then there needs to be laws to protect you, unfortunately I have to agree the figures involved are ridiculous therefore most people do nothing. However, as a member of 6024 I have not voted for my subscriptions to be used in clearing libel debts as with others I am sure.

 

I don't believe you've been a member for some time now, but I'm happy to be proved wrong.
Let me know your member number and I can check with the membership secretary.

 

I love the fact that in some quarters its the lawyers who get the blame when it wasn't them who 'published' the article in the first place. Bear in mind that solicitors are governed by strict rules regarding costs, and can be subject to sanctions should they not comply with these; at all stages they must make sure their client is aware of the potential cost implications of a course of action.

As has previously been stated, if you embark on a particular course of action as a trustee, you must be certain that it is in the best interests of your group.

 

Hmm. Only going on what I've read, of course, but it seems the defendants were very poorly advised or chose to ignore advice. Had they made an offer to apologise with reasonable damages they could have limited the costs to the difference between their offer and the eventual award in the unlikely event the plaintiff chose to continue.

I'm a stubborn person myself, and would have found that advice difficult to take if I felt my allegations were justified, but surely someone should have looked to the wider interests of the society once they guaranteed their people against liability? Was the decision not to seek an out-of-court settlement approved by the society? Was the legal advice (if any) discussed? If I was a society memeber there would be a lot of questions I would want answered.

 

And precisely why does anyone have to prove to you whether they are a member or not? That is quite apart from the question of whether you have a right to access to the membership records and whether the membership secretary would be breaching the Data Protection Act by granting you access.

I still fail to see how the sale is purely/mainly to ensure the overhaul can be funded - as a number of posters have said, the legal fees would still need to be funded from somewhere. If the Society had the money to pay these (and that is not the implication in much of the reporting of the sale), the purpose for holding that money would have been the maintenance, operating and overhaul of 6024. hence, without the legal fees, much of the money for the next overhaul would have existed. After paying them, it didn't. Still the main reason the loco had to be sold was meeting the legal fees.

I understand that the 6024 Preservation Society is not a Registered Charity in the normal sense but is an "exempt charity" and hence not on the Charity Commissioners register. I don't know whether this means the Charity Commissioners are not responsible for the regulation of exempt charities, but I do know they are not keen on Charities engaging in litigation for reasons very well demonstrated by this case (and a recent case in my area concering a farm left to the RSPB). Any Trustees have the responsibility of protecting their Trust's position and assets. This may include considering the need for legal action but it is a perfectly correct course of action for a consideration of costs and risks to lead to a conclusion that a non-litigeous course needs to be taken.

Steven

 

Of course they don't. I asked because I'd like to know to whom I'm conversing with.
Likewise, the membership secretary doesn't have to tell me anything. But if I don't ask, then I won't know will I.?
Personally I think there are enough Troll's on this forum to justify my question.

 

Let me guess: no-one can have a right to an opinion unless they are a member of 6024's former owning group?

 

I don't re-call saying that at all.? Please remind me if I did.

 

I know passions are running high regarding this subject and I think all of us can understand why. Whilst this is a discussion forum where people are welcome to air their views, can I just call for a little care and perhaps some time out from the keyboard before responsding to something that raises the blood pressure?

There are some indicators that this thread could end up in a slanging match and we don't want that !

Before any poster becomes defensive, this isn't aimed at anyone personally. Just an appeal for some calm and considered posting.

 

Edited after reading John's last post.

 

Letter sent Telegraph by my solicitors on my behalf in response to Andrew Gilligan's article "steam buffs sell engine to pay libel bill" published 9th January 2011 online.


The Editor
The Sunday Telegraph
111 Buckingham Palace Road
LONDON
SW1W 0DT

By e-mail to stletters@telegraph.co.uk
Cc Ian.MacGregor@telegraph.co.uk
Cc Kate.Teh@telegraph.co.uk

14th January 2011​

Dear Sir,

​

May I respond to Andrew Gilligan’s article about my libel action (“Steam buffs sell engine to pay libel bill” published on 9th January 2011) by mentioning some crucial points which did not appear in the article.

First, I chose not to sue the Society (which, contrary to the impression given by Mr Gilligan, was never a defendant to the proceedings) but only Mr Watson, who wrote the defamatory Editorial, and another Defendant whom I believed to have been involved in its publication but whom the Judge found was not responsible for it. Unfortunately the Society’s Management Board chose to involve the Society by persuading a quorum of only 60 of the members to commit the Society to indemnifying the Defendants.

Before the proceedings were started, my lawyers explained in detail in correspondence why the Editorial’s allegation of dishonesty against me was untrue and unfounded, emphasised that my principal concern was to vindicate my reputation and offered modest and reasonable terms for settling the matter without recourse to the courts. These proposals were contemptuously rejected, which left me with no alternative but to start proceedings. The Defendants (whose lawyers also acted under a ‘no win, no fee’ agreement) then pleaded not only privilege but also that the allegation of dishonesty against me was true, which in turn required my lawyers to prepare a very detailed statement of my case in rebuttal.

When it became clear that the Management Board was going to ask the members to agree that the Society should indemnify the Defendants, my lawyers requested the Society to circulate my statement of case to all the members, so that they could be fully and fairly informed before taking such an important decision. It became clear at the trial however that this was not done.

The article contained criticism of the Judge by Mr Abbey, but did not mention the Judge’s explanation in his judgement that,

“the allegation complained of in this action is so serious that it is a proportionate step for the Claimant to proceed with this claim in respect of the thirteen or so readers of the copies sent to those on the non-members mailing list.”

Nor did the article mention that the Judge was critical of aspects of the way in which the Defendants and Mr Abbey had conducted the case, which he described as “obfuscations” which did “not reflect well upon them”.

It speaks for itself that Mr Watson decided to settle the action when it became clear that he could only win it if he proved his allegation to be true.

Whilst Mr Watson points out that he stood to lose his house without the indemnity, I too would have lost my house had I lost the action; and no one indemnified me.

Everyone has the right to defend his or her reputation, especially against allegations which are very serious. No one understands how it feels to be libelled in this way until it happens. Had my lawyers not believed in my integrity and agreed to fight this case on a ‘no win no fee basis’ after my own funds and those of my partner had run out, I would have been left with no means of removing a dreadful slur on my character.

If any reader seeks further information about this case, copies of the Judge’s judgment and of the statement which my counsel read in court on my behalf are available from my solicitor at James.Heath@thlaw.co.uk.

Yours faithfully,


Steven Underhill

 

Please note, the post numbered 79 are those of the poster Mr Underhill and his alone, therefore, the post and any other matter relating to the post are of no relationship to Nat Pres Ltd, it's members or it's staff and will not be held responsible for the post, or anything else relating to the post.