6024 EGM

Well after reading Mr Underhills statement this shows that the society put the loco at risk to defend Mr Watson. So the crimson pirate that says they put the loco first, is an under statement.

regards
Charlie.

 

Thanks to Steven for explaining more about the situation.

I have sympathy for both him and the Society, and can totally understand his action. The situation was sad for all associated with 6024.

It's a pity that the only winners here have been the lawyers.

With that all said, personally I also feel very grateful to the buyers of the loco (the Royal Scot people and Mr Hosking) for rescuing my favourite loco from an uncertain future.

 

This is one of those unfortunate situations that is bound to send ripples through the movement, and (while phrasing this in a neutral manner) hopefully it will assist in prompting other societies and organisations to ensure the appropriate 'checks and balances' are in place to prevent this sort of thing happening to them.

There is so much more that could be said, but sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.

 

Societies like this are not legal entities in their own right unlike a registered charity or limited company. The individuals within are the legal entities in their own right. This means that any action in law is against an individual or group of individuals as private citizens. It needs, as in this case, the society to agree to indemnify the individuals. I've seen this before in another arena and it is destructive. Perhaps all societies need to be sure they do not indemnify individuals if they are set up in the same way. a cautionary tale!

 

I understood that as an Industrial and Provident Society registered with the FSA, 6024 Preservation Society Limited (company number IP21746R) was a separate legal entity?

S3 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 states that a registered society shall by virtue of its registration be a body corporate by its registered name, by which it may sue and be sued. I defer to Mr Underhill's letter (and the fact I know nothing further of the facts of the case) as to why the decision to pursue individuals as opposed to the society was taken.

 

After reading some of the comments in Downmain - Steam Railway I also question how has the management team of 6024 remained in their positions, in many businesses if you lose your company hundreds of thousands of pounds you would be sacked and possibly prosecuted. This is of course my opinion and mine only?

 

The management team of any company answer to the shareholders. The amount of money made or lost is irrelevant. The shareholders opinions of performance is all that matters. Why change a management team if you agree with the actions they took?

Personally, I think all involved with 6024 should be commended for standing firm with an individual in the society. To have walked away and let one person take all the "blame" would have been easy but weak in my opinion.

I have my own opinions on the specific situation, but I only know the details in the public arena.

Neil.

 

One thing I find a little confusing in that letter. "The Defendants (whose lawyers also acted under a ‘no win, no fee’ agreement)"
If they has a no win no fee agreement, how come they ended up with such a huge bill that required 6024 to be sold?
Jim

 

I think that means that the 6024 Society won't also have to pay their own lawyers' bills, since they lost. Just Mr Underhill's.

Similarly, if 6024 had won the action, Mr Underhill would have presumably been liable for the society's legal costs, but not his own.

The lawyers always wiin, though.

 

Yes of cause.
Blimey, if that bill was for only approximately half the legal costs, its scary how much they are allowed to charge!
Important lesson here for any preservation society. Don't air your dirty washing in your publications. It will come to no good.
Jim

 

Couldn't agree more. They should have kicked them out and kept thier loco.

I can't help but feel the 6024 Soc. has made the best out of a bad thing: They stuck with the 1 or 2 members that got them into this mess, they've lost thier loco but now it's effectively owned by J Hosking they have no more money issues, yet those 1 or 2 members are still at the top...

 

Are you certain of that?

 

Link to Judgement as referred to in telegraph letter

http://www.onebrickcourt.com/files/cases/underhill_65492.pdf

 

It is scary how much it costs to properly prepare a case of this nature. A lot of manhours are required. I am not suggesting that you can't make a good living as a lawyer, but they incur significant cost too. The 6024 society lawyers just took all their hours "on the chin"
I completely agree with the second point though. Think before you write!

 

it has been a very sad episode in 6024's preservation history,

I have a great affection for the locomotive as My father helped in the restoration of the locomotive (he was involed from when the loco was purchased from barry until the competion in 1989 and his name is on the plaque in the cab) and spent many years at Quainton seeing a pile of parts being transformed into a working locomotive,
talking to my father about what has happened over the last few years and he said there were a few power struggles within the society during the initial restoration, but they were always resolved internaly,
I feel that the departure of Steve Underhill has been detrimental to the society, the loco's avaliability due to repair work has increased noticably since his departure,
and his vast knowledge and years of experience of working on the King has been lost,
the sale of the Loco to Mr Hosking is a good move as the future is now secure, but I believe that the whole situation could have been avoided
Cheers
Stu

 

I contributed a few £'s when Chris Tankard started the project (I was only earning about £12 a week at the time) and I too find this course of events disappointing, but I am glad that the loco's future is assured.