Andy Y Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 With the greatest respect to all, it's really not my place to ask. As you'll have guessed, I am privvy to certain information regarding this case - but I'm not here to speak on behalf of RE. Far from it. You mentioned there had been a court hearing (before anyone else has commented on that) and you've been speaking up for RE so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a reference to the facts you've quoted. If you're giving us a version of events as relayed to you I think it's maybe fair to look at other factual content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchpole Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 You mentioned there had been a court hearing (before anyone else has commented on that) and you've been speaking up for RE so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a reference to the facts you've quoted. If you're giving us a version of events as relayed to you I think it's maybe fair to look at other factual content. Agreed. But as I say, I do not know the details you're asking for and I am certainly not in a position to demand more information. The fact that I chose to speak up merely demonstrates my interest in the episode and a certain compulsion to defend the interests of someone I know personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I am certainly not in a position to demand more information. I'm not saying you should demand anything; it was a polite request from my side considering we've been presented with one perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Given that many courts publish details on the cases to be heard (example http://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/Central-Criminal-Court.php) then I would have thought that the requested information (court and date) isn't "privileged information"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchpole Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I'm not saying you should demand anything; it was a polite request from my side considering we've been presented with one perspective. If any more information should come my way I'll be only too happy to share it. That said, judging by the level of interest in this episode, you might be better served to contact both parties directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Phatbob Posted October 31, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 31, 2013 Thanks Perchpole.I'm with Cromptonnut in that my curiousity as to the arguments raised by both sides would probably be satisfied if I could find a court report or similar. So which Court and on what date etc. would be very handy. While I'm posting here, I'd like to say thanks to RE for the personal e-mail explaining their understanding of what's happened and the offer of some compensation for dissapointment by way of a discount on the final product when it does appear. Can't say fairer than that IMHO. Bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchpole Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 So which Court and on what date etc. would be very handy. I don't know how these things work so I'm only guessing, but as this was settled "out of court" then perhaps it's treated differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 but as this was settled "out of court" then perhaps it's treated differently? Stuff me! So there was no court hearing? Please don't feed us duff information or infer that the outcome was determined by a judge when in reality it's a commercial compromise reached by agreement. No wonder I could smell rats and fish. Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchpole Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Stuff me! So there was no court hearing? Please don't feed us duff information or infer that the outcome was determined by a judge when in reality it's a commercial compromise reached by agreement. No wonder I could smell rats and fish. Unbelievable. I don't follow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Sorry Perchpole, I'm not understanding you here either. You said it went to court, plain and simple. You also said Heljan lost! Now your saying it was out of court! Bale out now old son, your parachute might just save you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Nobody won or lost if there was no case presided over by a judge. I do not know if it has been stated that there was a court case, merely that the likelihood of a court case prompted Heljan to settle out of court. That infers guilt on Heljan's part, no more or no less. Nobody's been found guilty of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted October 31, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 31, 2013 I Agree. However I suspect the chains of legal settlements may preclude either party from talking too publicly about matters. I do not speak for Rail Exclusive but I do know some of the facts surrounding this episode and it's important some of those facts are "aired" - if only to counter some of the theories people have put forward. Philip Sutton invested a huge amount of capital in getting the 33s project rolling. He then risked even more trying to get his money back in court. People don't enter into such legal battles lightly. Don't forget, this was an argument contested by two parties speaking different languages. I understand the translation fees alone ran into several tens of thousands of pounds. If things had gone the wrong way he risked personal ruin. As I say, I do not speak for Philip or his company, but I do champion the bloke's guts for fighting his corner. Fair play to him. My bold. I knew Phil for several years myself - no further comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchpole Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 RE did take Heljan to court. However, at some point in the legal proceedings Heljan decided to throw in the towel and settled out of court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Not really what you inferred though is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 RE did take Heljan to court. However, at some point in the legal proceedings Heljan decided to throw in the towel and settled out of court. I'm pleased you've received this clarification; it's always worth being cautious when making comment on legal proceedings as statements you made could have been considered injurious towards Heljan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71 Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Aft'noon all, ...its getting a little warm in here. Perchpole is quite correct to say that there has been both a court case and a settlement...quite a complex affair. However, the only people who should be interested in this are Phil's customers...and he has communicated with them individually. If anyone wants to know any more then have the courtesy to ring him directly on 01780 470086. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the-gog Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 If only half the effort goes into making this model as has been expended here discussing the court case, then it'll be a fantastic model. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 However, the only people who should be interested in this are Phil's customers...and he has communicated with them individually. If anyone wants to know any more then have the courtesy to ring him directly on 01780 470086. Quite right but once mud started to be thrown on the pages it's natural to probe further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchpole Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I'm pleased you've received this clarification; it's always worth being cautious when making comment on legal proceedings as statements you made could have been considered injurious towards Heljan. Guys, I'm lost. I didn't infer anything. I certainly haven't had a message through some mysterious crystal ball as Andy seems to be implying! I have not been feeding anyone duff information. When you sue something or someone, you take them to court. Whether you actually get to sit in an oak panelled courtroom in front of Judge John Deed may come later. In this instance, RE took a company to court and got their money back - plus costs (as outlined in the RE letter posted earlier). Those are the facts. Plain and simple. That being the case, RE can be said to have won. If so, then surely the other side lost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 However, the only people who should be interested in this are Phil's customers...and he has communicated with them individually. Unfortunately, I'm interested in lots of things that have nothing to do with me. I believe it's called human nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Mike Posted October 31, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 31, 2013 IIRC you could have both an out of court settlement and a court case. If the court case actually starts then the judge may have to approve any settlement (without reaching judgement on the case). Cheers, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchpole Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 IIRC you could have both an out of court settlement and a court case. If the court case actually starts then the judge may have to approve any settlement (without reaching judgement on the case). Cheers, Mike Maybe so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I didn't infer anything. Sorry Perchpole but you inferred an awful lot. In this instance I think you'll find it was both. When directly challenged http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/54641-update-on-rail-exclusive-33s/?p=1204468 whether there'd been a court hearing you inferred there was. Also I can see that other contributors arrived at a conclusion that there had been a ruling (including a party well used to such matters) and at no point did you clarify that a settlement was reached out of court. As an emissary it was a spectacular balls-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchpole Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Sorry Perchpole but you inferred an awful lot. When directly challenged http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/54641-update-on-rail-exclusive-33s/?p=1204468 whether there'd been a court hearing you inferred there was. Also I can see that other contributors arrived at a conclusion that there had been a ruling (including a party well used to such matters) and at no point did you clarify that a settlement was reached out of court. As an emissary it was a spectacular balls-up. Or to put it another way: Did RE take Heljan to court - and was there and out of court settlement. Answer: In this instance I think you'll find it was both. In other words, yes on both counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.