Jump to content

Lerwick dredging to cost SIC £5.25m


Styles
 Share

Recommended Posts

There have been lots of poorly handled issues with the bridge project for sure, but this one at least does not seem to fall on the SIC to me.

 

They asked for an interim interdict, the court decided they were entitled to it, and then 6 months later the court decided they were not entitled to it after all?

 

Regardless of the merits of the issue, it seems the legal process was followed correctly, but in this case seems to have created the contractual problem because of the time it took to be finally resolved.

I would be interested to see how the council could be held liable for the extra dredging contract costs on that basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ The key question to be answered concerning council liability as far as I can see, is going to hinge on whether the council submissions to acquire the Interdict contained incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, which when pointed out and proven at the later date led to the removal of the Interdict. Or if the Court simply got their decision wrong on one of the two occasions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ That's fair enough, and from that I would think it's reasonably safe to assume the the council's advisor's believed, before the Interdict was applied for, that the situation was otherwise, and incorrectly advised the council to go for it. Unless of course it was one of those frequent times that the council heard the advice, and then went off and did something else.

 

The question then remains, were the LPA given the opportunity to state their position at the time original court hearing for the Interdict application, and did they do so, stating that as far as they were concerned their power within harbour limits was absolute? If not, why not? And if so, why did the judge accept the council's position over the LPA one at that time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the interdict was applied for on the basis of one thing - "breach of an agreement" - and ultimately refused on another - "lack of jurisdiction".

 

The judgment had plenty of information on the back and forth about who agreed what at what time and what they (thought) they meant, but I don't remember much being presented by either side about the issue of jurisdiction, which I remember more as something coming from the judge...... but it has been a long time..... luckily IANAL, and might get away with not knowing what I am talking about ;)

 

I'd say it'd be "interesting" to see how the claim for compensation proceeds, if it were not going to be another big mess that benefits nobody :evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Yes, the "legal", and the "ethical" rights and wrongs of this one don't necessarily lead to the same place. Neither side came out of the whole debacle smelling of roses any more than the other, there's much criticism that could be levelled at either one.

 

Perhaps, if there is a bottom line, it is that the council's advisors, and therefor the council should have been fully aware that the LPA held the Ace card of jurisdiction, and could "legally" say "gerr orf ma laand" if it came to that and they chose to play it. If the council didn't, then it could be said their advisors are culpable, if they did, and chose to gamble, then the council itself is culpable, from IMHO a "moral" standpoint at least. Although whether that also translates in to "legal" culpability, and the claiming of "costs" such as this, is a wholly other matter, as thank the Gods of where-ever, IANAL either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My impression was certainly that legally nobody knew quite where the issues stood and that all sides, SIC, LPA, Edinburgh and the judge, were firefighting their ways through it.

 

I THINK that the ultimate authority and most of the issues of legal processes required were not fully determined until the judge said they were.....

 

At the moment I see it was equivalent to A objecting to the planning application of B because it will interfere with their own application, that objection being upheld and permission refused to B, then later permission being granted to B on appeal.....

B might be able to sue on the basis of incompetent administration of the process, but I don't see how they can sue A for objecting....... we shall see.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I am concerned the SIC Crapped in there own nest on this one. Over a bridge nobody wants. The cost of the dredging should come out of there own pockets and there over inflated expenses clams. There were to many ex Solicitors on the council. (When this silly idea for a bridge was proposed) Who are blinded by how much money that can be made out of all the land in Bressay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question then remains, were the LPA given the opportunity to state their position at the time original court hearing for the Interdict application, and did they do so, stating that as far as they were concerned their power within harbour limits was absolute? If not, why not? And if so, why did the judge accept the council's position over the LPA one at that time?

 

I think the key word here is "interim". I could apply for an interim interdict to prevent Ghostrider posting on Shetlink, his side of the story would not be heard at the time the interdict is granted, but if it transpires that I have no legitimate reason to stop him posting then the interdict is overturned and I would be liable to pay his costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they think they are a law to themselves, for gods sake, sandies ment to be a lawyer, fair enough then he knows the way around money on and a pipe, but could him and his back round boy no stop smokeing cigars (poor sandy can hardley speak his wisdom without gasping, boys and girls I hope that has put u off smokeing).

 

Lawyer are the scum of the world this this makes it more true, are they real people or just things that cant carry on without wads of cash?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could apply for an interim interdict to prevent Ghostrider posting on Shetlink, his side of the story would not be heard at the time the interdict is granted, but if it transpires that I have no legitimate reason to stop him posting then the interdict is overturned and I would be liable to pay his costs.

 

My Accountant and my Lawyer have already been informed, in case anyone is getting any bright ideas. :wink: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...