S&D Railway Trust

So what you are saying is because yet again the PLC have demonstrated they don't understand legal agreements and can't adhere to them you indicate that the S&DRT are going to suffer becuase of it. Two things come to mind:

1. The judge will love that, just more evidence of PLC incompetence.
2. I'm sure SCC won't be impressed with the PLC either because as you highlight it looks like the PLC have broken their SCC Lease terms. The question is, is it either a fixable or repudiatory breach by the PLC !!!!

 

I don't profess to know the facts of this matter, but in such a case I would not expect that the Chairman acted on his own volition, but must surely have signed any such lease only after getting Board approval? In which case, where within the Plc organisation would the responsibility have rested to ensure that the Board did not make such a legal mistake?

 

Theres more judgements on this thread than the Nuremburg war trials.

 

My experience of committees is that they fall into two types - those where those committees make collective decisions, and those where there is a dominant personality setting the agenda and who has the power to drive through decisions. As regards ensuring the legality is checked, I would generally look towards the company secretary to lead on "governance" matters if there isn't a General Counsel.

The minutes of the board meetings before notice was given would be very interesting to read.

 

...which did not end well for many of the accused, some of whom took their own way out.

The Washford situation reminds me more of an excommunication

 

My thoughts too, but looking at the Plc website I can find no evidence of any Company Secretary being listed.

 

FOUR FIFTY PARTNERSHIP LIMITED
Correspondence address
34 Boulevard, Weston-Super-Mare, Somerset, United Kingdom, BS23 1NF
Role ACTIVE
Secretary
Appointed on
11 January 2019

Registered in a European Economic Area What's this?
Placed registered
FOUR FIFTY PARTNERSHIP LIMITED
Registration number
05032008

Taken from WSR PLC Companies house. They are also the PLC accountants as well, brought in by the 'Dear Leader' when he sacked the internal staff saying the PLC had to cut costs ( I assume that they are donating their £200 ph fee to the WSR!). Interestingly they are also his own companies accountants as well.

 

I just checked on the .gov website, url herewith, and I leave you to draw your own conclusions:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01010188/officers

 

My memory is that the latest agreement re a sub lease from the WSR Plc to the S&D was
signed long before Mr Jones-Pratt assumed the Chair. Certainly nothing to do with the
'Four fifty partnership. '

Michael Rowe

 

Indeed you are correct but the question I answered above was in reply to who is the company secretary now. We are back to what Board minutes say and who carried out Due Diligence both then (2018, at the time of the 50 year lease being signed) and recently (2020, when the eviction notice was sent). Either way the PLC did both.

 

But they were dealing with a war of shorter duration!

 

Here's an interesting question or 2 then...

Assume for a moment that the Plc did not have the power to grant a 50-year lease to the S&DRT. So is not that lease invalid then? In which case, what is the validity - if any - of a Notice to Quit' in respect of a lease which in effect is null and void?

If the current lease is invalid, then may one presume that the lease which it superseded is in fact still valid? That lease expired this year, IIRC either May or June, so in effect the Plc would need not to do anything other than sit and wait for a few more months, after which the S&DRT might then be regarded as squatters perhaps?

What a tangled mess....:-(

 

My understanding of residential tenancy law is that a sub tenancy is enforceable even if the head tenancy prohibits it - if that makes sense.

IE if the PLC have leased Washford to the S&DRT, the fact that the lease with SCC says that they cant wont help them.

 

The role of Company Secretary needs little explanation but a cornerstone is that they are tasked with keeping everything on the straight and narrow. When the role is burdened with conflicts of interest, the possibility of being compromised is very real. After all, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

IIRC, the HR manager attempted to uphold due process and that didn't end well. The Dear Leader does not tolerate independent thought.

 

Indeed. And I'm reminded of the commercial briefings I receive at work, where almost the worst possible outcome of any commercial dispute would be recission, putting both parties back in the position they were in as though the contract had never existed.

 

Well, heres hoping!

 

So he is Boss, judge and executioner which = Dictator (which I thought was someone who grew potatoes)

 

Or, would a judge be able to rule that the 50 year sub-lease is valid at least until the end of the 25-year main lease and beyond that if the main lease is subsequently renewed or extended - or would that option not be open to the judge?

 

Potentially yes, if the WSR plc used it as an attempt to void the whole lease on the basis that they were unable to enter into it. Esp if the S&DT were to argue as they well could that they relied on assurances given by the WSR that they had the power to grant such a lease. However as my Law lecturer used to say "The answer is: we just don't know" (how the court would find as the case hasn't been decided) and therefore this is more speculation

 

It seems like no one knows this. Is it still belonging to them or have it been soldered