Mildenhall Stadium-bad News

[uk_martin 1,606]

That is true, but if the entity can't pay, who will pay? I would suggest someone will go hungry!

 

Then I think there will have to be some kind of action for liquidation / bankruptcy.

 

Where individual persons are concerned, then they stand to be responsible for their share of the costs according to what their personal wealth can afford. Anyone trading as a limited company will be responsible as far as the net asset worth of the liquidated company can bring to the table (probably about £100 share capital and the net value of the assets of that company, if they need to be liquidated) It could well be that the land, the stadium and all the equipment in it will need to be sold to raise the money needed. Some individuals may find their personal circumstances (and that of their families) changing dramatically before too long.

 

Also worrying is the statement on page 27 of the report "The planning permission was renewed on a permanent basis in 1985, although it was made personal to Mr Waters." - so if Mr Waters is no longer able to continue, the planning permission to use the stadium expires with him.

 

The fact that the local council (as described in the Case Summary) took action against the stadium owners for "Statutory Nuisance" and that this court case will forever hang over the operation will make it difficult for anyone else who acquires the assets ever to get planning permission again to do anything that will cause noise nuisance there again, should they be minded to do so.

[Halifaxtiger 5,318]

I live fairly close to a pub. Before I moved I knew it was here, it opens every day from midday to 11pm. No problem with that but rest assured if that pub suddenly decided to flout its license and stay open till 3 AM on a regular basis I would do all I could to put a stop to it.

 

The owners of Mildenhall were unreasonable and luckily for the rest of us the law has shown that, no matter how long you gave been there, you cant simply disregard other peoples right to a reasonable life

 

And I think everyone would support you in that.

 

I wonder how much support you would get if you moved into that house in the full knowledge that the pub was open until 3am and then tried to put a stop to it.

 

Considerably less I would imagine, and its the second set of circumstances that apply in the Mildenhall case.

 

In my view (and I suspect in most) the unreasonable ones were the house owners. Move in next to the stadium and then demand that it holds just 12 events is completely unacceptable.

 

I don't suppose those lawyers who trundle on with these cases racking up enormous fees would be

mindful that perhaps the property was bought as an investment since its value would increase greatly if the so called nuisance was removed.

 

I thought that the Government intended to protect extant businesses which did not suit new neighbours

after their arrival which is why I suggest that the Parliamentary Committee for Speedway can be of some practical use to the sport.

 

It is clear to me that natural justice and sensible legal rulings have gone out of the window but if

some events have gone on until 2.00 am that would seem to be irresponsible. Other than that I see no justification for the outcome and I sincerely hope that at some point this is overturned

 

You're absolutely right, Malcolm. The bizarre part of this case is that the compensation award to the house owners is just £20k. The £500k legal costs comes mostly from 'bonuses' in the legal contract between the house owners and their lawyers who took this case on a 'no win, no fee' basis.

 

Its an absolute indictment of our legal system. The plaintiff has a destroyed house and £20K compensation. The defendant is likely to go bankrupt.

 

Only the lawyers have done well out of it.

 

Good point, but if 'the nuisance' was behaving unreasonably and beyond the terms of the planning permission, maybe the Judge(s) had no option, but to agree with the complaint. If someone moves into an area, where there is speedway and 'the nuisance' is complying with their curfew, I would have thought it difficult for a court to side with a complaint from the new resident, in my opinion.

 

I'd maintain that whatever time the noise was made until - and I stayed in the compound and it was still going on at 2am, although I would say that I slept through it - the fact that the people moved in next to it simply must be a relevant factor in any legal ruling. It has been stated that it is of no relevance whatsoever, and that's the bit I can't stomach.

 

 

I don't suppose it helped show the stadium owners in a good light when it was shown that they ran Stock Cars for 10 years WITHOUT Planning Permission, and only afterwards went back to the Council to hold them over a barrel and say "no-one's objected in the last 10 years so give us retrospective planning consent please".

 

 

It may indeed be possible even then to run a NL team on 12 "events" a year - as long as every event is a league meeting...however one thing has been overlooked here. Whether or not the injunction ever takes force, the costs still have to be met. The lawyers want paying. That £500,000 bill from NoiseLaywers4U has to be stumped up from somewhere or the whole shooting match goes down in flames.

 

Blame the house owners for starting the action. Blame the lawyers for finishing it all off.

 

You might just about run an NL team on 12 meetings a year, but there's no way that would make the stadium economical. Any other events - stock cars, bangers, greyhounds could not be run at all.

 

Your last sentence is, however, just about spot on.

 

 

 

Also worrying is the statement on page 27 of the report "The planning permission was renewed on a permanent basis in 1985, although it was made personal to Mr Waters." - so if Mr Waters is no longer able to continue, the planning permission to use the stadium expires with him.

 

The fact that the local council (as described in the Case Summary) took action against the stadium owners for "Statutory Nuisance" and that this court case will forever hang over the operation will make it difficult for anyone else who acquires the assets ever to get planning permission again to do anything that will cause noise nuisance there again, should they be minded to do so.

 

If planning permission has expired, how are the speedway and stock cars still running ?

 

I doubt if anyone will buy it with the 12 meetings judgement hanging over it and the (albeit slim) possibility that someone will move into the house at some point in the future.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Halifaxtiger

[Swift Saint 186]

Our legal system is a joke and run by buffoons. Legal costs should never be allowed to exceed the actual award and the Justice Minister should give this his urgent attention now. The alleged £500,000 is totally disproportionate and looks like daylight robbery. Where is the Parliamentary Committee in all of this although I expect most of them, like the rest of Parliament, are legal practitioners of some sort.

Edited August 1, 2015 by Proud Potter

[uk_martin 1,606]

Our legal system is a joke and run by buffoons. ...

I wonder if there is an internet forum for lawyers? And I wonder what their verdict on the running of speedway in Great Britain would be...??? Would they also come to the conclusion that British speedway was a joke and run by buffoons?

[Swift Saint 186]

I wonder if there is an internet forum for lawyers? And I wonder what their verdict on the running of speedway in Great Britain would be...??? Would they also come to the conclusion that British speedway was a joke and run by buffoons?

Maybe they would but who in speedway picks up that fee for one job. Not many.

[MattK 3,447]

Our legal system is a joke and run by buffoons. Legal costs should never be allowed to exceed the actual award and the Justice Minister should give this his urgent attention now. The alleged £500,000 is totally disproportionate and looks like daylight robbery. Where is the Parliamentary Committee in all of this although I expect most of them, like the rest of Parliament, are legal practitioners of some sort.

 

How many hours of legal profession's time went in to this case?