RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:Halle-f*cking-lujah! Why it took them two months to come to this blatantly obvious conclusion, I don't know. Still, we're here now.

I actually have started to enjoy reading Sparrow, Carne and Websper's arguments now that they've lost once - they get their day in court, get to womble on, and then get smacked down by the judge for talking irrelevant nonsense.

Puja

kk67 wrote:Go on then,....give us the best bits. I did read about it more closely 18 months ago and it was starting to sound like something you'd read in the back pages of Private Eye.
I can't remember any details.

Tribunal wrote: As a result, the submissions, both written and oral, of Mr. Sparrow were, regrettably, not relevant to the terms of the draft Scheme, this being the matter to be decided in this appeal.

Tribunal wrote: This correspondence had no impact on the Tribunal’s decision, since it, again raised matters that were not within the scope of the remittal and re-hearing of the appeals.

kk67 wrote:

Puja wrote:Halle-f*cking-lujah! Why it took them two months to come to this blatantly obvious conclusion, I don't know. Still, we're here now.

I actually have started to enjoy reading Sparrow, Carne and Websper's arguments now that they've lost once - they get their day in court, get to womble on, and then get smacked down by the judge for talking irrelevant nonsense.

Puja

Go on then,....give us the best bits. I did read about it more closely 18 months ago and it was starting to sound like something you'd read in the back pages of Private Eye.
I can't remember any details.

The Appellants did not have a common position on the substantive provisions of the draft Scheme and, on many points, had differing views. To the extent that there was any common ground between the three Appellants, this related to the contents of the definition of ‘1956 Conveyance’ in clause 1.1; the terms of clauses 2.1 and 2.2 in respect of the Objects of the Charity and clauses 3.1 and 3.2 concerning the administration of the Charity.

The Tribunal had the benefit of the Appellants’ submissions in respect of these provisions of the draft Scheme recorded in tabular form (the ‘List of Issues’) helpfully produced by the Second Respondent. Those submissions were supplemented by skeleton arguments produced by each of the Appellants in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal following the Case Management Hearing held on 8 February 2016, and by oral submissions made by each of the Appellants at the substantive hearing. Both Mr. Sparrow and Ms. Carne, two of the Appellants, each handed in a further written submission after they had made their oral submissions. While this was somewhat unusual and not in accordance with any directions issued, or normal practice (particularly since the other parties and the Tribunal had no opportunity to consider that additional material and to ask questions or make further submissions in relation thereto), those additional written submissions, copies of which were also provided to the Commission and the Second Respondent, were admitted by the Tribunal in the interests of justice.

Which Tyler wrote:And the fat lady wanders back to her dressing room
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/objector ... story.html
Rosemary Carne has vowed to keep fighting - she doesn't know how, where or on what grounds yet, but she's sure she'll think of something.
She does think she's done with the Charity Commission tribunals though; so what next? it can't be a matter of law, or she'd appeal the recent decision; and presumably points of law would also be needed for... well, anything else TBH.