WP vs NEA. Some have asked why the WPs AHPETC could not just accept the offer of a composition fine made by the NEA, and why it had to go to court. In fact, the WP town council has very good reasons why it chose to seek the courts decision on the issue of its responsibilities and authority under the law - especially when both the NEA and the MND had apparently told it different things regarding its right to hold fairs. So, what would you do if you are faced with these: 1. NEA seems to say or indicate repeatedly that AHPETC could hold the fair. It even advised the AHPETC to submit the necessary documents to the NEA “quickly to avoid any delay in issuing the permit.” 2. NEA requires AHPETC to obtain “letter of support” from CCC chairman to apply for a permit to hold the fair, even though the premises where the fair will be held is under the aegis of the AHPETC, as stipulated in the Town Council Act. 3. NEA application forms, however, mysteriously removed “town councils” as one of the entities allowed to hold the fair. 4. MND tells AHPETC, after the fair has started, that it is not allowed to hold such fairs, or “to engage in commercial activities, including the organisation and operation of fairs.” There thus seem to be mixed signals from the two authorities involved – the NEA and the MND. What if the NEA had granted the permit to the AHPETC and the latter had proceeded to hold the fair with NEA’s permit? Would AHPETC (and in fact, NEA) have contravened MND’s apparent policy that town councils are not allowed to engage in commercial activities? The WP is thus right in adhering to the NEA requirements as much as possible by submitting the forms it felt were applicable, while at the same time indicating in the forms that the event was not a “fair” but an “event”, and to decline the offer of a composition fine because it would not have brought clarity to the issue. Read on to get a clearer picture of the whole saga..
Posted on: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 05:55:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015