S&D Railway Trust

The other advantage with 'Alternative Dispute Resolution' is that unlike going to Court which is - generally, a public process the ADR process can be kept confidential.

 

Not really. There are two ways of accounting for such an obligation. Debit asset and credit liability and depreciate the asset over the life in this case 10 years (credit asset and debit P&L account) , or provide for the asset by credit liability and debit P&L account over ,in this case, 10 years. The former is the "the correct" way to record the transactions, but AFAICS its not followed by the WSR accounts. There are a number of other holes in the accounts, but this isn't an accounting forum.

 

From the information that has been posted here, it has appeared all along that one party is seriously at fault and the other not at all, and the most recent additional statements from both sides have not changed that. Given the contradiction between statements from the two sides, some of those statements must be false; at best mistakes and at worst downright lies. We can hope that the mediation process will establish firm facts, whether or not those can be made public.

 

A good solicitor should be able to advise its clients where they should settle, if you go down that route there will be a lot fewer nasty surprises.

 

even if you think you have a “rock solid” case then by mediating successfully you are disposing of litigation risk, in other words no matter how confident you are there is always a chance that “on the day” the other side has a very good day and you have a very bad day. Equally you could win and spend a lot of money on legal fees but if the other side have no money then you won’t get that back. This can’t really be underestimated, if we could all predict litigation then we wouldn’t need courts!

regards

Matt

 

As neither side has money to burn it would be most sensible to go down the route of arbitration. However, it obviously depends on how hardline elements within the sides are. If the WSR wants the S&DRT out then I am not sure how arbitration can succeed. Alternatively, it does allow a compromise to be struck but without any loss of face.

 

Mediation and arbitration are not the same thing, but it seems they are being used interchangably in this thread.

 

We must also hope that there is sufficient trust, integrity and good faith to allow mediation or arbitration (@Lplus' point about the difference between the two is noted) to work. Judging by "official" pronouncements and comments by interested parties on here, I sadly can't regard that as a given.

 

As has been pointed out previously by others, the Joint Statement does not mention either 'mediation' or 'arbitration'. It says "...It was agreed that the best way to minimise those concerns was to use the services of an independent party, which is provided for in the terms of the lease. The PLC explained that it has already been in talks with the Heritage Railway Association about such an approach, and was waiting for their final agreement on assistance...".

What that independent party was expected to do is not specified, so it might well yet be the case sadly that the two sides to this dispute are expecting different outcomes from any HRA involvement. One can but hope that it will become clearer sooner rather than later.

 

Could you explain the difference for those who don't know the difference?

 

While litigation is expensive, and something I would hardly wish on my worst enemy, mediation carries the risk of a false moral equivalence. Here, the plc is clearly the bully, and it is hardly fair to settle on the basis of a halfway house between the positions adopted by the two parties to the dispute. Any outcome, that means the S&DRT leaving Washford without a satisfactory and affordable new home and the plc meeting all the expenses of moving all the S&DRT's stock plus paying for anything left on site, such as buildings erected by the S&DRT during its 40 year stay, would effectively be rewarding the bully.

 

Judged by who? You and a few other loud voices on here.

 

Very fair comment, but how such assistance could be provided without stepping between the parties I don't quite see.

 

Perhaps I jumped the gun a bit, lets wait & see what the parties agree to,mediation or arbitration.

 

In the most basic terms, a mediator attempts to help two parties come to a mutually acceptable decision, whereas an adjudicator listens to both sides and makes a decision. The adjudicator's decision may or may not be binding, depending on the terms of the adjudication.

 

The problem is that solicitors can only ADVISE but will be INSTRUCTED by the client irrespective of the situation. AIUI the current PLC is intent on a specific course of action and seems reluctant to either accept advice or change course.

 

No real projects at the moment and no I would personally run 88 as much as I could get a 2 year extention if possible to raise abit more use what I would potentially have already from kilmersdon to go towards 88's overhaul then once overhaul to 88 is done strike up a 10+ year lease of the loco and money from that overhaul one of the two locos.

 

What do you expect when there is enough evidence easily available in the public domain to show 1 party is 'bending the truth' in quite a lot of there public statements...?

 

Keep it in context, the judgement would be given by the adjudicator.