Bath Rugby prepare to tackle Rec court challenge

“The root of the problem is that the RC have a robust (legally strong for Jessie) lease that they are entitled to use for another 57 years. This of course deprives the Trust from use of that land for the objects of the Trust for 7 months of the year. So we need a solution to get round this impasse, anyone got a better idea than the land swap?”

“The question has been posed "Surely there's a better future to be had for Bath Rugby elsewhere?" Quite probably but the issue is the Rec, will they be better off without the Rugby.

There's what I think is the root of the problem.

As long as there's such a view; that it's the Rec (the land) that's the issue, and not a professional rugby club playing upon it and relying on an independent charitable trust; neither that trust's beneficiaries at large - including rugby fans - nor the club itself will be able to resolve the deadlock and fully develop any better future for the site or the club.”

“The question has been posed "Surely there's a better future to be had for Bath Rugby elsewhere?" Quite probably but the issue is the Rec, will they be better off without the Rugby? Alternative solutions for the next 57 years appear to be non existent amongst all the diatribe from the antis!”

“"Left to us", Abate? Kindly point me to the part of the 1956 Conveyance where it says the Recreation ground was left to you or anyone. Further the 2002 HC case stated that the Corporation should maintain the rec for the public at large, it's not only for Bath residents.

What a good idea to make the Rec a village green! Oh wait a minute the Leisure Centre and Car Park are on the green, oh well they will have to go and the B&NES tax payer can help with the maintenance costs. Brilliant solution!!!!”

“As a Bath resident I say make the recreation a town green for all residents to enjoy not just for a minority of rugby club followers and commercial interests . This was left to us in Bath in the covenant as such. I am convinced all the residents of our city would if asked totally agree.”

“Yes indeed. As far as I can see. Damned if they annoy with fishing expeditions like this 'to flush out challenges' while continuing to avoid transparency, muddying waters, and probably damned if the contents of the land-swap gift horse and how it's been engineered were revealed.

Surely there's a better future to be had for Bath Rugby elsewhere?”

“Poor old Rugby Club damned if they don't and damned if they do!”

“Saturday March 16th, 6.51pm "this is the procedure that an applicant applying for a modification or a discharge of a restrictive covenant HAS to follow before they go to higher authorities" . "Not bullying just following legal procedure" - your words Darius and no it isn't. The procedure is that the applicant applies and then the court requests submissions from those affected - which in this case is possibly everyone within the boundary of the covenant.

"Draft", huh, yes of course it is, that is why, contary to your statement, the Form for Return makes NO mention of that and states "This form is a matter of legal review. If you wish to object your response should be based upon legal opinion".
Fishing expedition which has provoked annoyance is a more accurate description and i can assure you that the lack of a full and honest attempt to discuss this with those affected will be counter - productive.

"The press publications will come in due course".They probably will now, perhaps the published article above is just a draft.

The Upper Tribunal is NOT the High Court.

The club's lawyers say that "the 1922 covenant is legal but unenforceable". Chronicle April 13th 2011.”

“1946 please read what I say and not attribute words to me that I haven't said. I have never said the leaflet is part of the Act. What I did say is that it is part of the legal procedures required before an application is made for a covenant to be modified.

If you read the leaflet the RC has not made the application yet (they have shown us a DRAFT application form). So calm down! The press publications will come in due course. However, as the RC has been advised, it is incumbent on the applicant to negotiate with the covenant holder/s before they go to the UTLC and there maybe many or none amongst the neighbours who have been sent the booklet! If I was a covenant holder I would contact the club to see what they have to offer!

As regards the UTLC the best I can do for you is this explanation:

The Upper Tribunal is a superior court of record, giving it equivalent status to the High Court and meaning that it can both set precedents and can enforce its decisions (and those of the First-tier Tribunal) without the need to ask the High Court or the Court of Session to intervene. It is also the first (and only) tribunal to have the power of judicial review.

Don't believe everything you read in the Chronic is my advice to you!”

“April 13th 2011 the Chronicle reported that the issue (of the covenants) is likely to be settled EITHER in the High Court OR by a specialised branch of the judiciary called the Upper Tribunal (Lands Court). Not only are you wrong, Darius, but the procedures have not been publicised in the press, nor included in the leaflet which makes it a fishing expedition not, as you claim an attempt to inform the neighbours. Nor, as you claim, was this leaflet a requirement in the Act - if it were, the leaflet would have had to be full and honest.

Also, the same article states that the club's lawyers say that "the 1922 covenant is valid but unenforceable". An informative leaflet, Darius, i think not.”