TODAYS REPORT 18/SEPT/2014 (OR MORE ABOUT THE MONKEY BUSINESS) Hattersley, Charles To gokhan CC Me Chris Swift DCB mep Jones, Ieuan alison.seabeck.MP. Today at 3:52 PM URGENT Dear Gokhan, Many thanks for the conference call this morning - which clarified a number of important issues. By way of summary:- Environmental and Radiation Issues: One of your team was going to contact the Yard with a view to establishing when the draft reports may be submitted to the relevant authorities in Turkey. If at all possible we should attempt to obtain copies (but accept that this is unlikely). What we really need is an estimate of the time factor before a decision is made as to the condition of the vessel - in respect of necessary licences and also as regards radioactive materials on board. You should have the e-mail from Laurence Sharpe-Stevens showing the extent of radioactive materials around the values on board - which possibly could be passed to that particular inspector. Of course, if we can obtain any advance information on this issue through your contacts at the yard - and obtain some estimate of the delay it may cause - that would be very helpful indeed. Court Proceedings: Thank you for the explanation of the Judges actions during the course of the last 2-3 days - to which I referred in my e-mail of the 17th September. The point that, at least under English Law, that an object or equipment once subject to the requirements of a charitable trust must remain so, ad infinitum, may be a point that we did not emphasise strongly enough at the provisional injunction. In England and Wales the Charity Commission control, very assiduously the rights and obligations of charitable institutions. I have had it made extremely clear from a specialist charity lawyer (based in London) that there can be no question at all of any object or equipment that is the subject of a charity being for profit or tendered for sale to give any other legal entity other than a charitable institution. Accordingly a commercial organisation such as Peel Holdings could not, under the Charities legislation in England, obtain access to a vessel such as the Plymouth. Of course, this may not be the case under Turkish law but it is very clear law in England and Wales. If necessary we can obtain an opinion from the Charities Commission but I am reliably informed that this may take up to 14 days because their in house lawyers are particularly slow at dealing with such a request. However, it may provide further evidence/information to sway the court to consider another application for an injunction - presumably on the basis that the Judge was not fully apprised of all relevant facts when he refused our original request. I assume that this would be quicker and less expensive than an appeal. However, if an appeal is the only reasonable way forward then, subject to time and costs implications, (on which I understand that you are reporting,) please prepare the relevant papers so that we can at least be ready for such an appeal and use this documentation and tactics as part of the negotiating procedure (see below). Just so that you are clear about the chronology of the disclaimer etc. I attach the best document that we have this point which is a reply to a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request by the Maritime Coastguard Agency. The liquidator of the Warship Preservation Trust Limited executed a disclaimer on the 28th February 2006 and this was referred to the Treasury Solicitor on or about the 15th March 2006. Three weeks later (11th April 2006) the Treasury Solicitor (i.e. the UK Government) issued a disclaimer and as a result the vessel passed to the Crown in UK as bona vacantia. As a result there was a lacuna as to who had title/ownership in the vessel and you will note the particular letter from the MCA refers to the need for legal advice on this point. What in fact happened was that possession was confused with ownership and as a result Peel Holdings effectively assumed title and negotiated on this basis not only with the port authority in Liverpool but also with a scrap yard in Turkey. I know that you are aware of these points but some may be relevant to any further legal action. I really do regret that we cannot obtain copies of the disclaimer letters themselves - we have requested them on a number of occasions but they have not been forthcoming however I will keep attempting to do so through relevant channels. However I enclose another copy of the 28th February 2006 disclaimer. Negotiations: Self-evidently, constructive negotiations with the Yard would be more productive, less expensive and carry far less risk than proceeding through the Courts. I understand that you know the lawyers well and have an inside contact which may assist. Accordingly on the basis that they are now well aware of the position we are adopting in respect of the vessel - and should be well versed in the legal and other arguments - would you please attempt to arrange a without prejudice meeting and discuss all outstanding issues in an attempt to:- a) Ensure that no work is carried out on the vessel and preferably that she is place on a mooring away from the main slipway so that we can have a photograph for all her supporters showing her at anchor i.e. safe and in one piece; and b) Emphasise that we are prepared to consider a commercial settlement in an attempt to establish a bottom line in money terms that would be required to purchase her. This must be an attractive proposition to them particularly in light of the potential Court action (on which they will spend considerable sums of money) and may provide them with a slight premium on the sums that they would have obtained as a result of the on-sale of scrap. Once we have a figure (which they may be prepared to accept) we can then work at serious fund raising (which in UK should proceed swiftly once supporters are satisfied that the vessel is safe). Accordingly lack of any interference with/work on, the vessel must be a pre-condition of any financial deal. c) Please emphasis that we will be holding Peel Holdings entirely responsible for the current situation and in the event that we are successful in pursuing them for any financial settlement (either through the Courts or by negotiations) we can come to an arrangement whereby a certain percentage of the recovery goes to the yard - subject of course to the sort of figures that they are talking about for the vessels purchase. d) The tug back to UK is not a problem; we have contacts who could provide a very reasonable quote and service. e) Clearly we should emphasise that, in the absence of settlement, we will not hesitate in pursuing the matter through the Courts and have funds to do so. At the risk of being repetitive we need to emphasise that we are not laying any blame at the door of the Yard - in the sense that they have been an innocent victim of a fraudulent action by a UK company. In any event I am sure you will do all you can to make sure that the yard is on side. I hope that the above is not too patronising but of course we will provide whatever assistance we can at our end .Please do what you can as a matter of urgency and once again thank you for your continued, very valuable, assistance. Any queries please do not hesitate to ring at any time. Best regards Charles Charles Hattersley | Partner WE ARE GETTING STRONGER EACH DAY PLEASE DONATE HERE FOR US TO CONTINUE:- hmsplymouthtrust.co.uk/
Posted on: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 15:39:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015