CLAIM NO: HC/2015/001906

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION
BETWEEN:
LEIGH RAVENSCROFT
Claimant
and

CANAL and RIVER TRUST

Defendant

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SKELETON ARGUMENT OF CLAIMANT

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.

This Skeleton Argument is filed by the Claimant in respect of the hearing

listed on 23rd March 2016 respecting the Defendants application to
strike out my Claim and to resist my application for the assistance of Mr
Moore as McKenzie Friend.

Strike Out Application

2.

The principal basis of the Defendants application is that permitting the

Claim as made would be an abuse of process of the Court and/or likely
to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings.

3.

As I have submitted in prior pleadings and Witness Statement, it was

apparent from the beginning that the Defendant had been able to readily
identify the principle points of my claim and their basis. If any doubt had
arisen, it would have been dispersed by the filed List of Issues.

4.

If any amendment of the material I have submitted is considered

appropriate and necessary, I am as willing to comply as I was with the
request to amend the submissions I already have.
1

5.

I am anxious that the Court can, of course, readily understand the

particulars of my Claim and the basis upon which I have made it. I
understand the Courts desire to have paperwork in order, so that
matters proceed according to protocol, with clarity as to the issues.
What I have done so far, is an attempt to provide all that I thought the
Court and the Defendant would need, for comprehensive understanding
of the background and pertinent matters. If that needs revision in order
to meet the appropriate protocols and rules, I am prepared to abide by
the Courts directions.

6.

I note only, with respect to the suggestion that my Particulars of Claim

would be impenetrable to a Judge, that I have more confidence in their
ability, and as the Defendant has understood my case without seeming
difficulty, see no such problem arising with a Judge.

7.

With respect to the Defendants comments respecting the section of

Presumption of Probity, I refer to my Witness Statement.

8.

I acknowledge that these proceedings comprise a civil action, which is

all that I can bring, but it is not, I believe, correct to say that the Court
will not be considering criminality.

9.

On the Defendants own claims, the Court, in considering whether I

needed a relevant consent, would be considering whether I was guilty
of criminal behaviour justifying the Defendants actions, and on my
claims, the various actions taken by them likewise comprise criminal
behaviour under relevant Statutes.

10.

The Defendants pleadings appear to me to gloss over those

consequential aspects; The meaning of main navigable channel is
indeed a civil issue for determination, but the inevitable consequence of
any determination that I was outside of that channel is that the
Defendants actions were an offence against the public rights of
navigation on the river Trent, and such interference is a criminal offence.

11.

Likewise, seizing and holding property without Court warrant as lien on

prior debt which did happen, regardless of whether I was required to
hold a relevant consent for the boat where it was kept is a criminal
offence.

12.

The relevant section of my pleadings was drafted in recognition that

Courts will be understandably reluctant to make such findings respecting
a national organisation that relies upon the public perceiving them as
acting responsibly at all times, unless former such breaches can be
identified. As detailed in my Witness Statement, I believed that the rules
required such evidence to be produced, and I have done so.

13.

In summary, while I have to acknowledge that I have not been as

concise as perhaps desirable, and may have inadvertently failed to
comply with all the rules, I believe it would be a gross miscarriage of
justice to strike out all or any of my Claim.

14.

I have suffered greatly by the actions of the Defendant, respecting which

I believe I have a powerful case for them to answer as to the lawfulness
of any and/or all of those actions as detailed in my Claim. I believe that it
is entirely inappropriate for them to seek to deny me access to justice
through as I see it - tactics relying on technicalities.

Application re: McKenzie Friend

15.

I am, of course, in the hands of the Court as to permission for this, as I

accepted in my application. As noted therein, I have asked for this in the
interest of saving Court time and effort. I do not accept the Defendants
claim that this will be increased.

16.

I wish to observe that my stated inarticulacy does not imply mental

inadequacy; I have been involved for many years over issues with the
legality of bailiffs acting outside legal procedures in other fields, and am
perfectly able to understand the applicability of the legal background of
the relevant waterways Statutes once shown and explained to me.

17.

It is the verbal and written expression of my understanding with which I

have difficulty, and my one experience trying to put my case over the
Injunction costs issues at Nottingham County Court, has shown me that
I am not equipped to do so.

18.

I note respecting the assistance to which the Defendant refers in the

above case, that the person helping me was not involved in any Court
hearings; she did the same for me in writing out the Claim and
Particulars that Mr Moore has in this instance, but was otherwise
involved only in correspondence and talking with the Defendant outside
of any Court proceedings. She was also wholly ignorant of the
waterways legislation, and proceeded according to ideas of natural
justice and her own issues dealing with homelessness and evictions.

19.

It is assistance with presenting my case in Court that I need, and for

which I have respectfully asked. I do not know of anyone else with the
same experience in this waterways field as Mr Moore, and am grateful
for his offer to assist the Court however the Court deems most
appropriate.

20.

I feel that even with such assistance, the Defendant has clear superiority
by way of being represented by a vastly experienced QC, and the
request that the inequality of arms be further pronounced in their favour
cannot be considered a course of action assisting the Court in
conducting a fair trial of the issues.

Leigh Ravenscroft
c/- The Croft
Moor Lane
Newark
NG23 5QD

19 March 2016