Leigh Ravenscroft v Canal & River Trust
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Chief Master Marsh |
| Judgment Date | 14 September 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 2282 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC-2015-001906 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 14 September 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 2282 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane,
London EC4A 1NL
Chief Master Marsh
Case No: HC-2015-001906
Mr Leigh Ravenscroft (claimant in person): McKenzie friend – Mr Nigel Moore
Mr Christopher Stoner QC (instructed by Shoesmiths LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 1 st September 2016
This judgment deals with an application made by the claimant ("Mr Ravenscroft") for Mr Nigel Moore to be permitted to act as his McKenzie Friend for the purposes of this claim against the Canal & River Trust ("CRT"). Judgment was reserved on this point at the hearing on 1 st September 2016.
Background
Mr Ravenscroft is the owner of a thirty-four foot narrow boat which was originally named "Grandma Molly" and subsequently renamed "Three Wise Monkeys". He bought the boat, renovated it and later sold it in April 2011. He subsequently noticed that the boat had fallen into disrepair and re-purchased it in January 2014. The boat was located on the north bank of the river Trent near Newark, Nottingham with the consent of the riparian owner of Farndon Ferry.
On 26 th January 2015 the boat was seized by the CRT on the basis that the boat did not have the benefit of a Pleasure Boat Certificate and there were arrears of licence fees which were due. Having removed the boat, the CRT declined to return it to Mr Ravenscroft without the costs of storage and removal being paid. At one time they also demanded as a condition of return of the boat payment of a costs award made in Nottingham County Court after Mr Ravenscroft sought an injunction for the vessel to be returned. Eventually, upon payment of the sums claimed by the CRT, the boat was returned to Mr Ravenscroft.
Mr Ravenscroft disputes the CRT's entitlement to seize the vessel and by his claim issued on 18 th May 2015 he seeks a number of declarations and damages of £8,176 that sum being the amount he was required to pay to obtain the return of the boat. The principal legal issue between the parties concerns the meaning of the expression "main navigable channel" in the British Waterways Act 1971. Mr Ravenscroft contends this expression is limited to the 'main fairway' of the river whereas the CRT contends that the main navigable channel extends from bank to bank in the river. If Mr Ravenscroft is correct on his construction of the Act, he did not require a Pleasure Boat Certificate for the "Three Wise Monkeys". There are a number of subsidiary issues which also need to be resolved including whether or not the CRT was entitled pursuant to powers under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 to seize and keep a boat as security for sums which are due and whether the CRT is under a duty to act proportionately and only to pursue remedies other than seizure where they are available.
The issue of construction concerning the proper meaning of "main navigable channel" is a matter of some importance both to the boating fraternity and to the CRT. Although the monetary relief sought by Mr Ravenscroft in this claim is relatively small, it is common ground between the parties that it is desirable for the issue of construction to be determined in the High Court. At the case management conference held on 1 st September 2016 I declined to order that the issue of construction should go forward as a preliminary issue and I have directed that the trial of this claim should be heard in this Division. In view of the importance of the issue of construction the trial will be listed in Category A.
The claim did not get off to an auspicious start. In its original form, Mr Ravenscroft's particulars of claim ran to 121 pages with 473 additional pages of documentary evidence annexed to it. The CRT served a defence without prejudice to its contention that the claim, as a whole, should be struck out and on 20 th November 2015 issued an application seeking that order. The application came before me on 23 rd March 2016 when I determined that the particulars of claim should be struck out in entirety, but I declined to strike out the claim. Mr Ravenscroft was ordered to file and serve a draft amended particulars of claim by 29 th April 2016 and, in the event of the CRT not objecting to the amended particulars of claim, it was ordered to serve an amended defence by 27 th May 2016. The amended particulars of claim proved to be unobjectionable and the claim has now been fully pleaded. At the hearing on 1 st September 2016 Mr Ravenscroft was ordered to pay the CRT's costs of the application (which are to be summarily assessed on paper) and ordered to pay the CRT's costs thrown away by the amendment on the usual terms. The claim will now go forward for a trial in 2017.
Mr Ravenscroft's application
The claim came before me on 26 th November 2015 for a case management conference shortly after the CRT's application had been issued. Mr Ravenscroft appeared in person and brought with him Mr Nigel Moore who asked to act as McKenzie Friend for Mr Ravenscroft. On that occasion, as on all subsequent occasions, Mr Christopher Stoner QC appeared for the CRT. Apart from giving directions for the hearing of the CRT's application, initial consideration was given to Mr Ravenscroft's application for Mr Moore not just to be permitted to provide assistance but also to be given a right of audience. He was given permission to attend the adjourned hearing of the CRT's application "…for the purpose of assisting the claimant and, where permitted by the court, to speak on his behalf." Mr Ravenscroft and Mr Moore were directed to file and serve an application for a right of audience and to provide a Curriculum Vitae for Mr Moore. That application was made on 1 st December 2015. The CRT took the pragmatic approach of agreeing to Mr Moore acting as advocate when the CRT's application to strike out the claim was heard but this was without prejudice to its entitlement to object to Mr Moore being subsequently permitted to act as a McKenzie Friend, whether as advocate or otherwise. This approach enabled the CRT's application to be dealt with efficiently and it was a helpful approach because the draftsman of the particulars of claim in their original format was Mr Moore. It was of assistance to hear his response to the criticisms made by the CRT of the statement of case.
Mr Ravenscroft's application asks for the court's permission for Mr Moore to be accepted as his McKenzie Friend. The essential points made by Mr Ravenscroft are:
i) He is largely illiterate and therefore has difficulty reading and understanding the statutory and other background material;
ii) His emotional involvement with the issues make it impossible for him to deal with the matter calmly;
iii) He has no funds with which to engage professional representation and Mr Moore's agreed to provide help without any re-imbursement;
iv) Mr Moore has a great deal of relevant experience and knowledge.
Mr Moore has provided a Curriculum Vitae. He says that he has represented himself, and companies of which he has been an officer, on a number of occasion in various different courts and he represented himself in proceedings against the CRT when six boats in his care were served with section 8 notices under the 1971 Act demanding their removal from the waterway. He instigated proceedings in the Chancery Division which involved two trials and two trips to the Court of Appeal. He was ultimately successful. He expresses a willingness to help Mr Ravenscroft and the court and he goes on to say:
"I have further agreed to do this gratis, being understanding of his straightened situation, and because I have sympathy with the feelings of a victim of very similar circumstances to my own.
His action promotes no cause of my own, seeing as I have already won my own case, and I look after no boats affected by immediately relevant legislation. I'm simply seeking to assist in that area of law, with which I have necessarily become acquainted through research in my own field. My personal interest is solely with the upholding of justice."
Evidence on behalf of the CRT has been provided in three witness statements made by Lucy Emma Barry who is a solicitor employed by Shoesmiths LLP. In addition, both Mr Ravenscroft and Mr Moore have provided further witness statements.
Ms Barry's evidence seeks to paint a picture which differs from that put forward in Mr Moore's Curriculum Vitae. However, she stresses that the CRT has no objection to Mr Ravenscroft seeking assistance and, indeed, will be delighted if he is able to do so. However, the CRT is concerned that Mr Moore's involvement has changed the complexion of the issue between itself and Mr Ravenscroft from a matter suitable for the County Court into a wider attempt to litigate general issues of limited relevance to Mr Ravenscroft in short, and putting my own gloss on the CRT's case, its concern is that Mr Moore is part of a campaign being pursued against the CRT on behalf of boat owners who dislike the CRT's approach and that the conduct of Mr Ravenscroft's claim will be adversely affected if Mr Moore acts as an advocate for Mr Ravenscroft. The CRT fears the claim will be used for the purposes of a campaign against the CRT, rather than for the resolution issues that directly concerns Mr Ravenscroft. Mr Stoner QC further submits that the true position is not just that Mr Moore is seeking permission to act as Mr Ravenscroft's advocate, but is also seeking permission to conduct this claim on his behalf. He points to the fact that the claim in its original iteration was drafted by Mr Moore and that the amended claim has also been drafted by him. He says that the day to day conduct of the claim is in fact in the hands of Mr Moore and not Mr Ravenscroft.
The CRT's evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanly International Ltd v Maurice Choy And Another
...passage of time by reference to without prejudice negotiations. The case was later distinguished in Ravenscroft v Canal & River Trust [2016] EWHC 2282 (Ch) , where the court held that there is not a general exception which applies whenever without prejudice communications are referred to on......
-
Hanly International Ltd v Maurice Choy And Another
...passage of time by reference to without prejudice negotiations. The case was later distinguished in Ravenscroft v Canal & River Trust [2016] EWHC 2282 (Ch) , where the court held that there is not a general exception which applies whenever without prejudice communications are referred to on......
-
Hanly International Ltd v Maurice Choy And Another
...passage of time by reference to without prejudice negotiations. The case was later distinguished in Ravenscroft v Canal & River Trust [2016] EWHC 2282 (Ch) , where the court held that there is not a general exception which applies whenever without prejudice communications are referred to on......
-
Hanly International Ltd v Maurice Choy And Another
...passage of time by reference to without prejudice negotiations. The case was later distinguished in Ravenscroft v Canal & River Trust [2016] EWHC 2282 (Ch) , where the court held that there is not a general exception which applies whenever without prejudice communications are referred to on......