Dizzy Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 Good post culedude and now I understand Very wise to keep things close to your chest and don't tell to many 'people' within your group exactly what you are doing either as from past experience it's suprising how many spies you can get willing to 'help'. I'm trying to be subtle there Good luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
culedude Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 Good post culedude and now I understand Very wise to keep things close to your chest and don't tell to many 'people' within your group exactly what you are doing either as from past experience it's suprising how many spies you can get willing to 'help'. I'm trying to be subtle there Good luck Thanks for your understanding Dizzy, I realise discretion is everything and we'll be very careful. We now just need support by way of donations on the website, every penny will be accounted for and full disclosure is assure once the goal is reached. www.savesankeyvalleypark.com Please donate and support the park Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 Cant keep it quiet forever. Once you apply for whatever it is you are applying for, expect a counter application or blocking application. Be very careful as to who funds that application as you could leave yourself open for a personal liability for costs. It is not unknown for an application to be made for security as to costs. This could get very expensive very quick and very messy for thus funding it. BTW at my rates ?750 would get you just under 4 hours work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
culedude Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 following on from AdrianR's comments, it just goes to show how important it is to raise these funds. So if you do support the cause and want to help to save sankey valley park, please make a donation. Details of how are on the website www.savesankeyvalleypark.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 I dont get the link between my comments and the sudden need to raise funds. The comment cautioned that those applying could become personally liable for the costs of GW. If this gets to appeal, ?1800 wouldnt get you in the court never mind to make your point. I hope those who are doing this have deep pockets not just to pay their legal fees but potentially GW's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SankeyPimpernel Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 How do you know they would become personally liable when don't even know legally what they're doing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 I dont and have only suggested that they could be. However lets say whatever action they take has a potential to restrict the ability of GW to expand / develop. Do you expect GW to take it lying down. If they appoint lawyers to fight it and win do you suppose those lawyers will act pro bono? They'll simply seek to recover those costs from those who took the action. The court may order that those who lost do. Its certainly within their powers to do so. Its not definite but is a posibility hence the reference to "could" in the previous post. The lawyer they are hiring will i trust advise them accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 AdrianR is right. The only thing that stopped another local issue going all the way was the slight 'possibility' of failing. Solicitors were consulted and in the end it went to a barrister (at a high cost). Based on very strong facts and findings and other issues the barrister concluded there was a very strong chance that the 'Save' group would succeed in court BUT had to advise that there was also a small chance that they may not as with any case. That would have resulted in costs in the region of ?30k+ payable by the 'Save' people to the other party. It was not persued for that one small reason.... The 'Save' people could not chance it after all who on earth has ?30k+ to risk other than councils, developers or very profitable business owners Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 How do you know they would become personally liable when don't even know legally what they're doing? I personally know of a couple of people who tried to fight the Creamfields issue, who got hit for costs so be very careful. Life is not as straightforward as we might want it to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 .... and rather unfairly biased towards the big wigs with money IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SankeyPimpernel Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 I'd assume the strength of community argument / objections / past history with GW would significantly mitigate a judge passing costs on. In addition I heard someone mention early on in this thread about a community getting legal aid in a York case. Don't know what that was but it's something for the SSVP group to explore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Page 2 explanation... posted by SHA on 30 April. Mentioned nearly a month ago, I would hope the SSVP have already looked into this although admitidly this was at judicial review stage so some way off that at the moment eh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.