Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About ballaboy

  • Rank
    MF Senior Member
  1. They now have 6 weeks to appeal against this latest judgement that has gone against them. Should they do so that will mean more expense to them(unfortunately expense is not a problem to them) and a further delay before the paths can be opened. It is now 6 years since the closure, common justice should ensure that after a lenghty inquiry and 3 court defeats, the paths could be opened whilst the appeal is being carried out.
  2. IF that is true - i.e. that the Clarksons were given advice by advocates and IOMG that the ROWs existed across their potential purchase and were non-negotiable, then I change my position completely and agree that PROWL was right to challenge them. Just so it is clear, The Clarksons were advised by the advocates conducting the conveyancing searches that the DOT advised that whilst there were no POWS beyond the car park " it is clear that the public have rights of ramblage over Langness ( including the open portion of the property you propose to purchase)". I interpret this as a warning that if they closed any part of the open portion the public would be able to challenge the closure which is what happened.
  3. Asthe Deemster points out in his judgement it is one year and four months since the paths were designated ROWs after a properly conducted inquiry. By a very expensive legal procedure the apellants have managed to delay the implementation of the ROWS, but it would now appear that the DOI have to go ahead and get the signposts erected and in no time everyone will wonder what all thefuss was about. If purchasers do not heed warnings from govt depts and advocates prior to purchase they should not complain when due process of the law finds them to be at fault in closing a footpath.
  4. I think based on the contracted nature of this case, entirely due to the Clarkson's being determined to explore every possible procedure to get the PROWs decision overturned, that there will be a strong possibility of the DoI being awarded costs. In fact their lawyer warned that they would be looking for this when the opposition presented the recusal proposal so late in the day
  5. The inquiry did find that a right of way existed by establishing its unchallenged use for 21 years or more, the minister accepted the Inspector's finding on this. The Clarksons are trying by ever more complex ways to overturn this.
  6. Why cant the original judgement be the end of it, they were out of time for a petition of doleance, Why should they try to get a petition out of time?
  7. The Clarksons have failed to have the Deemster recuse himself and hand over the case to another deemster, I thought the idea tat someone could call for the removal of a judge because they did not like his ruling, was unbelievable in its cheek. Now surely they should stop these very expensive ( for them) delaying tactics and accept that inevitable, which that PROWS have been established on Langness
  8. Delaying tactics by Clarkson's lawyer, next hearing 11am on 11th May, to consider new papers submitted by them 2 minutes before todays hearing commenced
  9. What does it matter. My family has been here since about 1780, I think that's long enough for me to say that I couldn't give a shit what the Clarksons do. At least they have not had some bling arsehole Gin Palace built up North with its own fucking Equestrian Centre like all the other 'considerably richer than yaow' nouveau riche tax dodging wankers seem to be doing. I really don't see the problem. Dont see the problem because you live in the North and never go to Langness. Anyhow the final court hearing is tomorrow afternoon, then hopefully no one will care what the Clarksons do
  10. Langness should be low on his list of concerns now
  11. Then she should have know better. I think she did know better, it was her husband that wouldn't be told
  12. A gloriously funny article well worth a read
  13. A PROWL victory would be a victory for patience and perservence, in the face of obstruction from Ministers in 2005 who resisted applying the Highway Act to the closure of well trodden paths, because of the preceived status of the landowner.
  14. Source? The source is a letter dated 10th December 2004 to Mr & Mrs Clarkson from Quinn Kneale the solictors who conducted the property searches. The exact quote from the Dot regarding Highways is " It is clear that the Public have rights of ramblage over Langness including the open portion of the land you intend to purchase". The letter was produced during the Public Inquiry into the RoW
  • Create New...