Eddie Stobbies and the Chief Constable
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
You think a Chief Constable would have more common sense than to allegedly take free rides in a helicopter?
Saw a documentary about the two running Eddie Stobarts a few years ago when they were planning on getting their own airport. The above doesn't really surprise me.
You think a Chief Constable would have more common sense than to allegedly take free rides in a helicopter?
Saw a documentary about the two running Eddie Stobarts a few years ago when they were planning on getting their own airport. The above doesn't really surprise me.
There's a lot I unfortunately can't say here (or anywhere else) at the moment.
Peter has been fighting since 2008 and, at last, it looks like he's gaining traction.
There could potentially be a number of nervous members of Cumbria Police right about now.
I only wish I could have been in court with him today to watch it kick off.
Peter has been fighting since 2008 and, at last, it looks like he's gaining traction.
There could potentially be a number of nervous members of Cumbria Police right about now.
I only wish I could have been in court with him today to watch it kick off.
Edited by 10 Pence Short on Wednesday 16th January 23:10
10 Pence Short said:
There are at least 2 criminal prosecutions ongoing, including that of Mr Elliott (with a 'botched' investigation), that I believe are motivated by Mr. Elliott's pursuit of these matters, too.
Is this thread worth putting on a watch list for updates on Mr Elliot, or will you never be in a position to say much?
There are proceedings still ongoing, now at the Supreme Court, relating to the first injunction (the content of which is considered incompatible with Human Rights).
There are two sets of criminal proceedings, the investigations over which involve an officer of Cumbria Police who has acted on behalf of Stobart and appeared on their behalf in Civil Court against Mr. Elliott.
It is a long and convoluted story, albiet an intriguing one, that I will be absle to share once things have come to a conclusion.
There are two sets of criminal proceedings, the investigations over which involve an officer of Cumbria Police who has acted on behalf of Stobart and appeared on their behalf in Civil Court against Mr. Elliott.
It is a long and convoluted story, albiet an intriguing one, that I will be absle to share once things have come to a conclusion.
10 Pence Short said:
There are proceedings still ongoing, now at the Supreme Court, relating to the first injunction (the content of which is considered incompatible with Human Rights).
There are two sets of criminal proceedings, the investigations over which involve an officer of Cumbria Police who has acted on behalf of Stobart and appeared on their behalf in Civil Court against Mr. Elliott.
It is a long and convoluted story, albiet an intriguing one, that I will be absle to share once things have come to a conclusion.
Do you have a dog in the fight(s), or are you just an observer? Idle curiosity on my part, so won't be offended if you don't answer.There are two sets of criminal proceedings, the investigations over which involve an officer of Cumbria Police who has acted on behalf of Stobart and appeared on their behalf in Civil Court against Mr. Elliott.
It is a long and convoluted story, albiet an intriguing one, that I will be absle to share once things have come to a conclusion.
Red 4 said:
Wasn't Mr Hyde in the news a while ago ?
Allegations of bullying members of staff ?
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...Allegations of bullying members of staff ?
I suspect that there are at least two sides to this story. Stobarts deny the helicopter claim. It appears that Mr Elliott has been a busy litigant, but without much success so far.
http://www.cumberlandnews.co.uk/news/ex-pilot-vows...
http://www.cumberlandnews.co.uk/news/ex-pilot-vows...
Breadvan72 said:
See also
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1817....
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1289....
For a variety of reasons, much too elongated to put on here, Mr Elliott has gone through the entire process unrepresented (not through choice, I might add). http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1817....
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1289....
The first time any evidence was heard in court from Mr Elliott regards the original injunction was in front of Justice Sharp at Manchester High Court. Unfortunately, the issue of 'prompt' may have scuppered his chances, we'll see what the Supreme Court have to say.
I notice that the content of the article is all allegations by one man. A man who appears to have quite a big agenda. I do find myself doubting the story when I see things alleging that a serving CC is promoting a company in the media. It could happen of course but it is a very foolhardy thing to do and I suspect may have been mentioned by the media at some point. Is there a link to Mr Hydes alleged comments?
The media have predictably angled on a very minor point in proceedings relating to the Police. In reality that's not the main thrust of the case and they're not party to proceedings.
On the main elements, there is a paper trail to back up the allegations and that's about as much as I can say on the matter.
The first injunction was gained ex-parte, the trial to make it permanent was not attended by Mr. Elliott for health reasons and the subsequent 2 and a bit years have been him alone, as a bankrupt, trying to work out court procedure..
On the main elements, there is a paper trail to back up the allegations and that's about as much as I can say on the matter.
The first injunction was gained ex-parte, the trial to make it permanent was not attended by Mr. Elliott for health reasons and the subsequent 2 and a bit years have been him alone, as a bankrupt, trying to work out court procedure..
What about the other claims that Mr E has made that have been dismissed? He has appeared in front of some sensible Judges, who can usually tell if one side is being steamrollered by the other, especially if one side is unrepresented, and they don't appear thus far to have taken the view that this is what was happening here.
Here is Lord Justice Rix, a very experienced Judge of the Court of Appeal, in one of the cases:-
...."following the acrimonious parting of ways in March 2007 Mr Elliott started to make serious allegations against the way in which WADI operated and the way in which Mr Tinkler exercised any authority within WADI, and those allegations appear to have been essentially of two kinds. One is that it was suggested that Stobart were defrauded to the extent of some £11 million in the purchase transaction of Carlisle airport itself, and the other allegation was that WADI, when operating its Carlisle airport, was operating it in ways which were contrary to aviation safety and contrary to aviation regulation and/or law.
Those allegations led to litigation between the parties which was quite quickly compromised on 13 July 2007 in a settlement under which Mr Elliott undertook not to repeat his allegations, at any rate of regulatory misconduct on behalf of the present appellants in the operation of their aircraft. Subsequently in 2009 the appellants began an action in Manchester which was designed to hold Mr Elliott to his undertakings in circumstances where he had started again to make allegations which the appellants described as outrageous claims. He was doing that, it seems, in connection with his own action which he had commenced in Newcastle, an action which was struck out on 21 April 2009. There that action remains.
The appellants' Manchester action led in due course to first an interim injunction being granted against Mr Elliott restraining the making of the disputed allegations on 22 May 2009 and ultimately to a final order in still broader terms. In the meantime on 10 June 2008 HHJ Main QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, found Mr Elliott to be in contempt of the interim injunctions. He committed him to prison for three months and made a civil restraint order (a "CRO") against him. There was no appeal by Mr Elliott against his committal to prison for three months, although Mr Elliott informs us this morning that he would have liked to have appealed. He had of course a right to appeal. It is not clear to us why he did not advance that appeal, but we can imagine that circumstances were rather difficult. Be that as it may he has not at any time since, as we understand the matter, advanced an appeal from that committal sentence, although he has told us today that it would still be his intention even seven years later to seek to set aside that finding that he had broken the injunction and set aside the sentence that arose out of that injunction and its breach."
It is rare for a finding of contempt of court to be made, and it takes quite something for an order of the kind made against Mr E to be made.
Here is Lord Justice Rix, a very experienced Judge of the Court of Appeal, in one of the cases:-
...."following the acrimonious parting of ways in March 2007 Mr Elliott started to make serious allegations against the way in which WADI operated and the way in which Mr Tinkler exercised any authority within WADI, and those allegations appear to have been essentially of two kinds. One is that it was suggested that Stobart were defrauded to the extent of some £11 million in the purchase transaction of Carlisle airport itself, and the other allegation was that WADI, when operating its Carlisle airport, was operating it in ways which were contrary to aviation safety and contrary to aviation regulation and/or law.
Those allegations led to litigation between the parties which was quite quickly compromised on 13 July 2007 in a settlement under which Mr Elliott undertook not to repeat his allegations, at any rate of regulatory misconduct on behalf of the present appellants in the operation of their aircraft. Subsequently in 2009 the appellants began an action in Manchester which was designed to hold Mr Elliott to his undertakings in circumstances where he had started again to make allegations which the appellants described as outrageous claims. He was doing that, it seems, in connection with his own action which he had commenced in Newcastle, an action which was struck out on 21 April 2009. There that action remains.
The appellants' Manchester action led in due course to first an interim injunction being granted against Mr Elliott restraining the making of the disputed allegations on 22 May 2009 and ultimately to a final order in still broader terms. In the meantime on 10 June 2008 HHJ Main QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, found Mr Elliott to be in contempt of the interim injunctions. He committed him to prison for three months and made a civil restraint order (a "CRO") against him. There was no appeal by Mr Elliott against his committal to prison for three months, although Mr Elliott informs us this morning that he would have liked to have appealed. He had of course a right to appeal. It is not clear to us why he did not advance that appeal, but we can imagine that circumstances were rather difficult. Be that as it may he has not at any time since, as we understand the matter, advanced an appeal from that committal sentence, although he has told us today that it would still be his intention even seven years later to seek to set aside that finding that he had broken the injunction and set aside the sentence that arose out of that injunction and its breach."
It is rare for a finding of contempt of court to be made, and it takes quite something for an order of the kind made against Mr E to be made.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 17th January 20:29
There is little point in going into detail on here. The 2007 compromise agreement was actually breached by the other side first (in a press interview) this entitled Mr. Elliott to publicise the claims as he did.
Due to various reasons, including medically documented poor health and mental health, a contested trial over the original ex-parte injunction and subsequent permanent one never took place.
Mr. Elliott didn't appeal the committal for a number of reasons- the main one being that he was guilty of contempt. It was the order he was in contempt of that was unlawful in the first place.
Due to various reasons, including medically documented poor health and mental health, a contested trial over the original ex-parte injunction and subsequent permanent one never took place.
Mr. Elliott didn't appeal the committal for a number of reasons- the main one being that he was guilty of contempt. It was the order he was in contempt of that was unlawful in the first place.
Whether there is a trial over the injunction is dependent on the Supreme Court's decision.
The application began at Manchester High Court last year before Justice Sharpe. She held that Mr. Elliott did have a reasonable prospect of success at trial. This was not able to be contested by the other side.
The current point of contention is the narrow issue of 'prompt' as per the CPR. This was the narrow focus of the recent CoA hearings and any forthcoming SC one.
The application began at Manchester High Court last year before Justice Sharpe. She held that Mr. Elliott did have a reasonable prospect of success at trial. This was not able to be contested by the other side.
The current point of contention is the narrow issue of 'prompt' as per the CPR. This was the narrow focus of the recent CoA hearings and any forthcoming SC one.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff