Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Moore v BWB on Human Rights

Moore v BWB on Human Rights

Ratings: (0)|Views: 24|Likes:
Published by Nigel Moore
Final day February 16, 2012, Morning proceedings re Human Rights and Section 8 Notices
Final day February 16, 2012, Morning proceedings re Human Rights and Section 8 Notices

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Nigel Moore on Jan 17, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/17/2013

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECHANCERY DIVISION No. HC07C02340The Royal Courts of JusticeThursday, 16
th
February 2012Before:MR. JUSTICE HILDYARDB E T W E E N : NIGEL PETER MOOREApplicant- and -BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARDRespondent _________ 
Transcribed by
 BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO
Official Shorthand Writers and Tape TranscribersQuality House, Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP 
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737 
Email:info@beverleynunnery.com _________ THE APPLICANT appeared in person.MR. C. STONER (instructed by Shoosmiths) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. _________ 
P R O C E E D I N G S A.M. ONLY
BEVERLEY F NUNNERY & COOFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITERS
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
123
 
I N D E X
Page No.OPENINGMr. STONER1Mr. MOORE15 _________ 
BEVERLEY F NUNNERY & COOFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITERS
1234567891011121314
123
 
MR. JUSTICE HILDYARD: Before giving judgment may I just mention that agremlin has crept into the system in the following way. Because I have madesome amendments from the draft in every case in order to accommodate your very helpful comments and to try and make sure that whether right or wrongwhat I had stated was clear, I have made a number of amendments. I hadhoped that the tracked version would signify precisely where thoseamendments were, but the gremlin has crept in and there are someamendments in the final draft - and I hope you have a copy of that final draftwhich is in the closed space print - which do not appear in your trackedversion. Now, in particular there are three references, just so that you shouldknow the format which I intend to prove. There is a chance at paragraph 108which is not in the tracked draft. It is not of great moment. It is really a matter of editorial substitution of the word “absolute” for “extensive”. Then morematerially at 139 there is a change. I have slightly changed the end of that, if you would like to read through that. Then lastly at paragraph 230, that has been changed but does not show up in your tracked draft for reasons beyondmy ken. Are those clear? In that case, for the reasons that I have set out inthe closed typed version, copies of which have been available to you in draft, Ifind in terms of the conclusions that I have sought to set out in paragraph 233of the judgment. I should say that the judgment I now hand down is subject toeditorial corrections in case there are any further - and I would be very gratefulfor any to be pointed out - but subject to that caveat, a copy may be used bycourt reporters, if any, for reporting purposes, and a copy of the final judgmentwill be produced after receipt of any further editorial comments you may have by my clerk by tomorrow and will then be posted on the usual websites.We now have to deal principally with matters which I felt able only to expressa provisional - and by that I truly mean provisional - that is to say I am stillopen to persuasion on both limbs with respect to my concern as toinfringement of the claimant’s human rights. We then have to deal with anyother matters which ordinarily arise after judgment of this kind. Thank youvery much, both of you, for very helpful written submissions, which I haveread, but which I would still like assistance. The fact that in the human rightsarena change is constantly afoot is demonstrated by, I think, two decisions in2011 of the Supreme Court, each with a board of seven I think. So it is amatter which I want to tread with care and with your assistance. Who wouldlike to go first?MR. STONER: My Lord, I am entirely in your hands, but in circumstances whereyour preliminary view was that my clients had breached Mr. Moore’s humanrights, perhaps it would fall on me to go first. The other point is that in thewritten submissions - I know my Lord has been provided with a copy of 
 Pinnock 
and
 Powell 
.
BEVERLEY F NUNNERY & COOFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITERS
112345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243
12
3
4

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->