CLAIM NO: HC/2015/001906

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION

BETWEEN:
LEIGH RAVENSCROFT
Claimant
and
CANAL and RIVER TRUST
Defendant

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------STATEMENT OF NIGEL MOORE

September 2016 Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.

This short statement is submitted by me because the Defendants Skeleton

Argument for the forthcoming hearing deals predominantly with the issue of
my assistance to the Claimant, rather than concentrating on Directions for
the future conduct of the Claim.

2.

I do not propose to answer the points raised at any length, because I

thought the question had been substantially considered by the Court in the
previous hearings.

CaRT Costs Application

3.

Regarding the first matter that the Defendant wishes the Court to address
[the costs of the Application dated 20 November 2015], this will naturally
be for the Court to decide as to details, and as to any Order respecting that
which would prevent the Claim from proceeding.

4.

I will comment only, at this point, that the striking out of the Statement of
Case will not, if the Claim is allowed to proceed, have the end result of the
Defendant being freed from the need to address the points and evidence
within that Statement - most of which will [as advised] be more
appropriately submitted later, in good answer to the arguments which they
have already produced for the Court in their Defence and Amended
Defence. The effect of the Strike-Out has been to streamline the Claim
itself, to comply with Practice Directions; it has accomplished nothing in
terms of saving the Defendant in respect of future costs.

5.

It could be added also that the time taken in considering that material had
already taken place prior to the Strike-Out Application, and that the
Defendant had not suffered prejudicially even then, in terms of identifying
the cardinal points of the Claim.

6.

The net result of the Strike-out Application has been only to delay any
proceeding with the Claim for a year, and tripling the case management
hearings in the process. Had they succeeded in striking out the Claim
altogether, they might well have considered the investment worthwhile; as
it is, while technically justified, it has been counter productive.

7.

The Defendant has already acknowledged in pleadings both here and in

the Courts below, their knowledge of the Claimants straightened financial
circumstances. Any attempt to impose payments of summarily assessed
costs as a pre-condition for allowing this case to proceed - as appears to
be the intent could only be considered an unjust denial of the Claimants
recourse to justice.

8.

Further, considering the acknowledged importance of the issues involved,

success in halting proceedings would ultimately be self-defeating. The
issues will only arise yet again in the cases they are still currently pursuing
against other boaters, wherein the same issues are engaged. Halting this
Claim will result in increased future costs for the Defendant, not less.

9.

It is submitted respectfully that in all the circumstances, dealing with costs

in the case are most appropriately adjourned to conclusion of the case.
2

Ravenscroft Application

10.

Following the last hearing, and acceptance of the re-drafted Particulars,

the issues over prolix and disproportionate elements of the Claim have
presumably been addressed, such that the issue now is solely with
whether Mr Ravenscroft should be prevented from receiving my assistance
in presenting his case to the Court, and/or, perhaps, whether he should be
permitted any such assistance from anyone else with a similar grasp of the
background and relevant legislation, if they share the same objectives.

11.

There appears to be an accusation of dishonesty in the observation that Mr

Ravenscrofts stated inarticulacy has to be weighed against the fact, for
example, that he asserts on oath that it was he who introduced Mr Moore
to . . . the Statute of Marlborough of 1267.

12.

What does inarticulacy [and indeed even illiteracy] have to do with

intelligence and knowledge? I can affirm that Mr Ravenscrofts assertion on
oath is nothing less than the truth, and it is dishonourable for any
suggestion to the contrary to be made on grounds that provide no support
for the allegation. There is nothing wrong with the Claimants knowledge,
understanding, and appreciation of how justice has historically been sought
in this country - that has no relationship at all to the ability to express the
knowledge adequately and efficiently, most especially in the context of
formal hearings in public.

13.

Paragraph 26 of the Defendants Skeleton appears to classify me amongst

those who hold themselves out as professional advocates or professional
MFs or who seek to exercise such rights on a regular basis, whether for
reward or not. Thus I am someone who has made it his business to assist
others in claims against the Trust. This is untrue.

14.

This is the very first time that a boater has asked me to help them in court,
and certainly the first time that I have assisted anyone to bring a claim
against the Defendant. My previous assistance has been with the drafting
of defences only, and has never extended to help in the Courtroom.

15.

I have, of course, both generally and individually in online exchanges,

assisted others in answering questions as to the legality of proposed or
active actions by the Defendant against them. At times I have supported
the legality of the Defendants actions and advised accordingly; at other
times I have supported the boaters, and advised on a defence accordingly.

16.

At the same time - as I did with Mr Ravenscroft before getting involved - I

have advised on the pitfalls of pursuing either defensive or aggressive
legal action, and on the potential adverse consequences of litigation,
whether eventually found to be in the right or not.

17.

Mr Ravenscroft has chosen to pursue his case despite my cautions,

because he believes so strongly in his cause and I fully support that to
the extent that I have, in helping draft the submissions in the case.

18.

In that respect it would be obvious to anyone who troubled to review the

video footage from the day of the boats initial seizure at Newark Marina,
that I have exerted a calming and restraining influence in the measured
charges as presented to the Court. Alternative candidates, amongst the
very few in a similar position to assist Mr Ravenscroft, might well have
been or could be, even less attractive to the Defendant.

19.

As to the content of emails referred to in paragraphs 27 on, it was agreed

last time with Mr Ravenscroft, that the whole of the correspondence should
be exhibited if any portion is to be.

20.

It is obviously for the Court alone to decide whether my assistance in the

Courtroom would be helpful to the conduct of the case or not; I will submit
only that the most accurate assessment in that regard would be based on
the first-hand experience of my demeanour and performance thus far.

21.

Further to that I will say only that I have no ulterior aspirations respecting
grandstanding in court, and am currently encouraging Mr Ravenscroft in
his quest to obtain either crowd funding for a recommended direct-access
barrister, or for pro-bono representation. I will continue to support those
efforts, regardless of the outcome of the Defendants application.
4

Directions for future conduct of he Claim

22.

The Skeleton filed by Mr Ravenscroft has dealt with: the issues he wishes
to be determined [in agreement with most of the Defendants draft List];
with the issues as drafted by the Defendant that he objects to being raised,
and with the issues as drafted by the Defendant that need the wording
amended, in order to more accurately reflect the Claims true position.

23.

It is agreed the proper construction of the term main navigable channel is

most properly dealt with by the High Court for the reasons stated. However
the Defendants suggestion that the remaining issues should be re-directed
following that, to the County Courts, is objected to for much the same
reasons as apply to the statutory construction of the 1971 Act.

24.

It is submitted that the issue of the proportionality of using section 8

powers in disregard of the specific statutory sanctions is of sufficient import
to warrant High Court determination. The Appeal Court is already seised of
the question as to whether County Courts should be permitted to set aside
any consideration of this issue in the Defendants section 8 cases.

25.

Equally, it is submitted that the practice of forcing payment of claimed

licence arrears before returning seized boats, is a matter of sufficient
gravity - in a national organisation openly attempting to justify that in these
proceedings - that a declaration as to the criminality of, and punishment
for, the practice, comes most fittingly and effectively from the High Court.

26.

Aside from the above points, the High Court being already seised of these
matters, and in possession of the full background facts in the present
context of this case, I submit that passing some issues down to the lower
Courts will not be cost effective nor saving of time quite the reverse.

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Statement are true.

Nigel Moore, 29 August 2016

5