Poster: A snowHead
|
@Pruman, I'm not a lawyer, so probably best I don't speculate any further.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@rob@rar, nor am I. I guess we'll all find out (or not if it's kept confidential) soon enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Quote: |
From what I have read, the French regard SB as having broken their law
|
Which law did SB break?
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Poleplant wrote: |
Quote: |
From what I have read, the French regard SB as having broken their law
|
Which law did SB break? |
sucks teeth That is the question ...
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Sat 10-10-15 17:11; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Poleplant, I didn't say he had but sounds like the French authorities think he has otherwise why the court cases?
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Ah well the most recent French court case seems to put a bit of doubt in the mix, but we shall see eventually I guess
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pruman wrote: |
@Poleplant, I didn't say he had but sounds like the French authorities think he has otherwise why the court cases? |
I'd start with page one and work forward from there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's more like the French civil servants have broken the law, that's why ECOE are taking them to court.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Re-instated by BASI it say in the news
|
|
|
|
|
|
So who is running the sweep on tomorrows events then?
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Apparently it's listed as a First Hearing in the Edinburgh Court. What does that mean? Can we expect a resolution to the case tomorrow, or will it just be a case of hearing the case form both sides and then the Judge takes xx weeks to decide the outcome?
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
BASI will do a deal outside the front door, they haven't got a hope in hells chance of winning this, they are waiting to see if Simon drops the case, Simon will not drop the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We need TTT for the inside info
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@rob@rar, Copied from FB
'First hearing. The first time a case calls in court. Everyone gets to present their case / facts / opinions to the court. At the end of the hearing the judge will normally give a timescale for when he will release his written decision. Then the 'loser' at this stage will get an opportunity to appeal the Judges decision'.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
On a not unrelated subject, does anyone know of a supplier of professional liability insurance for Coaching \ Instructing other than BASI ?
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
AndAnotherThing.. wrote: |
On a not unrelated subject, does anyone know of a supplier of professional liability insurance for Coaching \ Instructing other than BASI ? |
All the national bodies offer it, but you have to be a member. Mrs t_m is insured twice - through CSIA (Canada) and Snowsport England. The Snowsport England cover is via Endsleigh Insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@telford_mike, Cheers, I'm looking for an independent option.
Will Mrs t_m really be covered through the CSIA if she's in Europe ?
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Statement from BASI this morning
Quote: |
On the 18th November 2015 at the Court of Session in Edinburgh there was a first hearing in respect of Simon Butler’s judicial review petition. This first hearing was a legal argument hearing, the judge listens to the legal arguments brought by each parties legal representation, no witnesses or evidence are presented.
In this petition Simon asked the court to:
(1) revoke the decision of 1 November 2014 to terminate his membership of BASI; and
(2) revoke a “decision” of 26 February 2014 to “withdraw” his MoU; and
(3) damages in the sum of £507,500.
BASI have previously conceded (in the court pleadings and by correspondence) that the decision of 1 November 2014 did not follow due process and have revoked this decision. This was recorded by the court on 18 November 2015. Simon Butler is currently a BASI member.
In terms of the other issues BASI maintain their defence. Their position has been that these issues cannot be determined by a court on legal argument only and without hearing evidence. Accordingly (given that no evidence can be presented at a first hearing in a judicial review) their position has been that a second hearing is required. This has now been granted.
At the first hearing on 18 November it was agreed between parties that a second hearing should be fixed to determine point 2 above. This hearing will take place on 8 to 11 March 2016.
No hearing has been fixed to determine point 3 above. Whether a hearing is required on point 3 will depend on the outcome of the 8-11 March 2016 hearing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Sheesh that's a crazy long time out.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
MadMountainMan wrote: |
Sheesh that's a crazy long time out. |
It is if you're waiting for a judgement in order to work this winter season.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
But SB has a MoU from Italy no? Or did BASI's Deep Throat conveniently scupper this?
Wouldn't have thought it's in anyone's interests for this to continue to drag out. Not SB's, not BASI's as the longer it's out there the longer the stench lingers, certainly not those other BASI members in limbo until SB's position is resolved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
But SB has a MoU from Italy no? Or did BASI's Deep Throat conveniently scupper this? |
No idea, I'm afraid. I don't know the story behind today's news, although it's not unusual for the wheels of justice to move slowly from time to time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
@rob@rar, Those were my thoughts! Though, as @Dave of the Marmottes says, he might have his Italian MoU
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Interesting. That suggests that the intervening time is not seen as a cost to BASI, or they'd want to do it quicker. So that £507,500 most not be accruing further. So I suppose that SB has mitigated the effects by shifting away from the French closed shop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with philwig that it looks like the MOU issue is currently in abeyance in regards to the effect it may or may not be having on Simons business otherwise the sum being claimed in damages would be rising throughout this winter. If in fact Simon has mitigate the effects by adjusting his operating model then this would be likely to weigh heavily in his favour in any damages/costs award he may ultimately achieve. BASI would have no choice on "doing it quicker" it is the way the legal system works I am afraid and I think dates in March are in fact quite quick in the general order of the way these things are done!
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
We still need TTT to tell us why the Judge got it wrong & why SB's case should have been thrown out
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
I'm just a thick so and so, but I see a slightly different position. It seems SB was looking for a Judicial Review (as in purely a decision based on Law) and BASI presented a case which meant that a Judicial Review wasn't appropriate as it's not a clear and simple point of law. So no each side has to present a case with evidence. Simple view would be it's a stalling position by BASI to allow them to get their house and associated paperwork in order. TTT clearly knows everything and despite checking back in on occasions doesn't have the substance to respond to given how preposterous her positioning was.
Note - edited to clarify
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Wed 18-11-15 18:44; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
From SB's FB page;
'Today at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, BASI made a public declaration before the Presiding Judge that they had contravened Mr Butlers Human Rights, and had breached the principals of natural justice by acting as they did in relation to their attempts to expel him from the organisation without giving him the chance to defend himself'.
I presume this in respect of Item 1 of SB's petition which BASI conceded to a few months ago.
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@philwig,
If SB wins in March he will be able to put an amended figure in, all the court could look at this time is the figure to date for loss to date.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@speed098: thanks, useful to know.
I suppose one could suggest that as BASI have not settled before this appearance, they're unlikely to do that before the next one, because the price is going up (bad for them), and nothing else material has changed.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
philwig wrote: |
@speed098: thanks, useful to know.
I suppose one could suggest that as BASI have not settled before this appearance, they're unlikely to do that before the next one, because the price is going up (bad for them), and nothing else material has changed. |
Only bad for them (or their legal liability insurance company) if they lose. Presumably their counsel think they have a realistic chance of winning. Must say this one is grinding away slowly.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Precisely. Summary: it ought to go to court next time, for those reasons.
They traded the first point in because it was an obvious fail, that's all. We have to wait for round two...
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
AndAnotherThing.. wrote: |
@telford_mike, Cheers, I'm looking for an independent option.
Will Mrs t_m really be covered through the CSIA if she's in Europe ? |
I think the CSIA insurance only counts in Canada but it is also only for Canadian Nationals.
On a similar point - does the Liability Insurance provided by Snowsports England cover teaching?
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
sobmaj wrote: |
On a similar point - does the Liability Insurance provided by Snowsports England cover teaching? |
Yes, they do offer pro liability insurance if you are a member of their coaching scheme subject to the usual caveats.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
If SB wins his case next year how will BASI be able to raise the £500k+ SB is claiming? Given that BASI would have been judged to have been wrong/negligent in the way it acted I would be very surprised if BASI's insurance would cough up. It would also have to pay SB's costs which must be pretty hefty by now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
@irie, I don't know anything about the case in question but I do know that once an insurer agrees a case is covered, they take it (if you think about many medical cases they revolve around negligence yet still covered by insurance). So, assuming they are covered, then they won't be worrying about the financial side. Secondly, very common for cases to be won but costs not awarded. So damages won can be outweighed by costs and the whole thing has turned into just an expensive moral victory. It is a scary time if you are on the hook for your own costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether such a claim against an insurance policy will cover these circumstances will depend on the terms of the insurance. The legal definition of negligence is quite broad although a little woolly around the edges and then there will be a question around directors and officers indemnity insurance as well! I am unaware of quite how the claim for damages has been framed in the current proceedings, obviously it is for loss of earnings and reputational damage presumably based on the wrongful behaviour of the officers of BASI who acte in a manner which was forseeably likely to cause harm to SB, his business and his reputation. As I write this and having noted that BASI has already agreed it should not have withheld SBs membership and have reinstated him it is difficult to see how BASI can defend themselves other than as to quantum since withdrawal of membership did, as I understand it, affect SBs status vis a vis his business model. The barristers will undoubtedly go to town on all of this.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
I would hope BASI are taking instruction from their insurers. If they are then the insurers will foot all costs necessary, but if BASI are doing some or all of this off their own back or do anything contrary to instruction given by the insurers it may null and void the insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I were an insurer and BASI clearly failed to follow its own rules I don't think I'd be keen to pay out.
|
|
|
|
|
|