S&D Railway Trust

Just don’t touch the very important discussion about misplaced mile posts.

 

Does the WSR have misplaced mileposts? That seems that it might be the least of their problems.

 

We've moved about 1000 miles or so off topic, and are stretching analogies, but the above story nevertheless provides some food for thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iuliu_Maniu

If only due to the efforts of Hammer Films, Vlad Dracula is better known in Britain than the above gentleman and other historical figures from Transylvania. I leave it to others to consider whether Count Dracula may be heading for the WSR.

 

And that is who I’ve been referring to.

The wiki entry doesn’t really do him justice.

A very brave politician but at critical times he made the wrong decision. Of course, it is only with hindsight that we can see the missed opportunities.

 

And your evidence to support that statement is what exactly?

 

The fact that we're on Page 65? Still no one's put forward a convincing reason not only why we shouldn't care, or even of why the land would be better used by the WSR, but how they can possibly square it with the fact that a 50 year lease was signed just 2 years ago.

 

I Take it then, that Garlic, and Stakes are off the menu now on the QB and working on the WSR, will leave you feeling rather drained .

 

I think that an unbiased reading of this thread would show that the eviction delivers questionable benefits to the WSR plc as landlord, is likely to incur significant direct costs at a time when cashflow will be very squeezed, has forfeited valuable goodwill, and is at best of contested legality. Just now, I'd suggest that rescinding the notice and focusing on the more fundamental issues to the future of the WSR plc would be a more productive use of time, money and energy. If there are real issues in respect of the S&DRT, it would offer an opportunity for reasoned negotiation to resolve these, respecting the interests of both organisations; if not, it's a chance to step back before things get out of hand.

If I were to wear my professional hat as a commercial manager, setting aside my personal opinions of the eviction, and just to base my views on what's been put in the public domain by the WSR plc and in the semi-official rebuttals presented here, I would be advising my employer that they were conducting a very high risk strategy, and that even if they won, it would likely be a pyrhhic victory. I would then suggest that Covid 19 provides an excellent opportunity to step back without loss of face or significant further cost, and that the opportunity should be taken while they were in control of the situation.

 

There is always a significant risk of going to court. If you have got that far then both sides will have lawyers who think they can win, but no one of course knows what a judge (or judges will decide)
If anyone is familiar with the recent (although it ran for years) BA Pensions issue this is a fine example. It included the company at one point trying to personally sue the funds trustees (half of whom of course were their own appointed senior managers!). Eventually the final outstanding issue got as far as an appeal to the Supreme Court which at the last minute was pulled for an out of court settlement in favour of the pension trustees. After years of High Court, Court of Appeal and getting almost to a Supreme Court hearing the legal fees must have far outweighed the small cost of the issue at hand.
The other issue in the Washford case would be the risk of the trustees of the charity and maybe the need to have a Beddoe hearing before contesting the case. This would allow the trustees to use the charity's funds to defend the case. This is of course a cost in itself if the hearing is unsuccessful. In the pensions case I mentioned above we had at least two Beddoe's hearing to allow the Pension fund money to be used to defend the case.
This explains some of the pitfalls and risks.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...es_and_litigation_the_legal_underpinnings.pdf

 

I notice from the web that the S&DRT has launched an Appeal for the Future at https://www.sdrt.org/Appeal-For-The-Future-Of-The-Trust.Html .

Curiously - unless somehow I have missed it - it makes no mention of the threatened eviction. I would have thought that would have made such an appeal even more important, or do they feel perhaps that people might be put off donating to an organisation apparently about to be evicted from its home with (as yet) nowhere else to go ?

 

Or perhaps, having had their legal advice, they're now fairly confident that they won't be moving...

 

Or, perhaps more likely, just want to remain silent on that risk given the other issues they face. To anyone in the know, the scope of that appeal is clear; to anyone not in the know, that particular possibility doesn't need to spelled out.

 

Presumably if the Beddoe Hearing gave The Trust the green light to proceed that may well give a clear signal to the WSR as to the possible outcome

 

Reading the notes provided by @Gladiator 5076, I'm not sure (but IANAL applies) that a Beddoe hearing would be required in this instance - it doesn't look like a clearcut example of "charity proceedings" in the way that the Ex6 action was.

 

Both sides have will lawyers who state that "you have a very strong case, and a very good chance of winning, but of course, these matters can come down to interpretation". The client only hears the first part of that statement.
The lawyer is basing his belief that he can win on the clients's statement that they have given full, fair and accurate information, facts and documents pertaining to the matter in dispute. If they are giving a (provably )false account of matters, partial information etc. the other side could very well pull the nasty surprise in court.
The lawyer is making his statement of belief that he can win knowing that he gets paid, by one side or other whether he wins or loses.

I was involved in a farming dispute,wherein we were claiming damages due to contamination of spring water. The other team were certain they were right, as the spring was on their land. I dug out a title transfer from 1855 where ownership of the spring was retained by the seller, to be passed down in perpetuity to the owners of XYZ Farm. And XYZ Farm were pals of the claimant, though they had absolutely no idea they were the owners of the spring in question.
The other side's solicitor did not see it coming...Funnier still because he was a no-win-no-fee type, so he lost out on whatever fees he'd hoped for.
We all got paid

 

That's odd, because every commercial lawyer I've ever spoken to has been keen to resolve issues early in a dispute and avoid getting dragged into the litigation process. Without exception, they've seen litigation as at best a necessary evil, and a drain on resources for both sides in a dispute where both sides will eventually lose, whatever the outcome of the case.

 

And on the other side, please tell us why this action should continue to run its course?

 

Indeed!

Hear Hear!

 

Can we agree on nearly every commercial lawyer? Certainly every good commercial lawyer.
I've encountered people who, if their lawyer won't go forward, they'll go and find one who will. If an existing client is insistent they must sue, the lawyer has two choices

 

I can agree with that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk