3ed Defendant: Exhibits: “LB2” Date: 31 August 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No: HC-2015-001906 CHANCERY DIVISION BETWEEN: LEIGH RAVENSCROFT Claimant and CANAL & RIVER TRUST Defendant THIRD WITNESS STATEMENT OF LUCY EMMA BARRY |, LUCY EMMA BARRY, of Witan Gate House, 500-600 Witan Gate West, Milton Keynes, MK@ 1SH, Solicitor of the Senior Court WILL SAY: 4, lam asolicitor of the Senior Court, employed by Shoosmiths LLP at Witan Gate House, 500-600 Witan Gate West, Milton Keynes MK9 1SH, which firm is retained by the Canal & River Trust (‘the Trust’) in this matter. I have day to day conduct of the file, subject to the supervision of a partner. | am duly authorised to make this witness statement on behalf of the Trust in opposition to Mr Ravenscroft’s application that Mr Nigel Moore be granted rights of audience and, in so far as the application is made, toconduct the litigation, and also that Mr Moore be restricted from acting as Mr Ravenscrof's Litigation Friend other than in strict compliance with the Guidance Note entitled "Practice Note (McKenzie Friends: Civil and Family Courts) published at [2010] 1 WLR 1881 2. The facts and matters referred to in this statement are within my own knowledge, save where | have identified to the contrary. Where the matters are within my own knowledge they are true. Where the matters are not directly within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief. 3. Further to my first witness statement dated 19 November 2015 and my second witness statement dated 24 August 2016, it has been noted that Mr Nigel Moore has made further comments regarding this case in an online discussion forum and | attach the relevant extracts made on 25 August 2016 at pages 1 to 4 of exhibit "LBS". Statement of Truth | believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true Lucy Emma Barry 31 August 2016 Associate / Solicitor-Advocate Shoosmiths LLP Defendant's Solicitorsard Defendant: Exhibits: “LB2” Date: 31 August 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No: HC-2018-001906 CHANCERY DIVISION BETWEEN: LEIGH RAVENSCROFT Claimant and CANAL & RIVER TRUST Defendant EXHIBIT “LB3” This is the Exhibit “LB3” referred to in the Witness Statement of Lucy Emma Barry dated 31 August 2016Debbi Figueiredo 26 August 2016 08:06 Barry, Lucy; Steven Holder Subject: ‘More from Canal World Forum Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Of relevance? NigelMoo. NigeiMoore Long Standing Member Members + coe0e. + 2,923 posts © Gender:Male Posted Yesterday, 05:41 PM Well, looks as though CaR'T will be trying yet again, next week, to cut his support out from under Leigh. Our own dear debbifiggi [Hi!] has been emailing some of my contributions on here to Jackie Lewis; Steven Holder and Shoosmiths etal, since at least last Dec a is excellent of course; | always post with the understanding that they should have the benefit of keeping track of the debates and criticisms over the legalities of their actions and arguments. However, it appears obvious that they feel there is something wrong with my discussing the case in this way, because they are exhibiting a couple of my posts in a second witness statement from Shoosmiths, doubtless intending to demonstrate my unsuitability to help Leigh out as he has asked. You would think that they would be glad to be kept appraised of their opposition’s thinking [1 would love to be privy to correspondence from them], but evidently not; keeping me out of the court room takes precedence over everything else, Having just been discussing all this with Leigh — who has been determined from the very outset to keep these issues in the public eye — he is happy enough to continue the transparency, and reveal that we 1discussed the possibility of my being precluded from assisting him in Court, before the last CMC back in March. Alternatives would be to ask Tony to step in, as his grasp of the relevant legislation is so thorough [though Tony will be as publicly transparent as I am], alternatively either Nick or Panda could be asked to fill in, both having had the relevant experience as discreet MacKenzie Friends with rights of audience granted, I wonder if that would make CaRT any happier? As Leigh told me though, unless the Court orders otherwise, he intends to keep everything out in the open; if the Court decrees otherwise, then that is a different matter, and he [as would | if retained] would comply with any relevant directions. However the one driving force behind his taking this action in the first place, ‘was to spread the word, acquaint people with the legislation, and help prevent others from suffering as he has done. Best of all though, would be to get suflicient erowd funding to enable employment of the barrister who successfully represented boaters against the EA. [ am minded to get in touch to sound him out on the idea, and if he was receptive, perhaps someone with the same abilities as cotswoldsman could take up the cause of raising the necessary. That last might be a sound idea, even if CaRT fail again, next week, to limit my volvement. The cost to CaRT upon losing would naturally be exponentially higher than with my gratis assistance only, but as we have commented oft before: spending money on these pursuits is something they are more than happy to do, Edited hy NigelMoore, Yesterday, 07:56 PM. ° 0 * Back totop igelMoore NigelMoore Long Standing Member + Members 2 21923 posts + GenderMale Posted Yesterday, 07:52 PM Ssscrudddy, on 25 Aug 2016 - 7:52 PM, said:Is that really a thing? CaRT take someone to court & then can somehow pick & choose who they (CaRT) allow to help Mr. Someone. How does that even work? Just so that it is clear ~ CaRT eannot dictate who helps/tepresents their opponent. What they can do, in cases of litigants in person, is make representations as to why they believe the litigant’s proposed litigation friend ought not to be allowed to speak for them, or “conduct the litigation”, or assist in court beyond certain strict guidelines. That is all within the ‘Rules’. 1am frankly confused over the conducting litigation aspect ~ nobody can prevent anyone helping out with advice on procedures, advice as to legislative interpretations, assembling evidence, drafting essential paperwork ete — so what else is there? Itis the being allowed ‘right of audience’ that is most exercising CaRT at the moment. Leigh has told the Court already that due to his dyslexia [not to mention his volatile emotional reactions under stress}, he really needs someone to speak for him. In itself, that is not something CaRT ostensibly find objectionable — it is me being that person that they find unacceptable. Also: CaRT have not taken Leigh to Court, it is the other way around. A not unimportant clement of Leigh's ‘complaint - as evidenced in the videos of the original incident - is that he was NOT taken to Court and the issues decided in that arena; it was CaRT's unilateral assumption of the role of judge, jury and executioner that he objected to, as being contrary to all relevant law. elMoore NigelMoore Long Standing Member Members 2 2,923 posts + Gender:Male Posted Yesterday, 08:17 PM We now also have a revised draft Costs Budget, which is sworn by Shoosmiths to be “a fair and accurate statement of incurred and estimated costs which it would be reasonable and proportionate for my client 10 incur in this litigation.” A little in excess of £90,000.One item that really grates is the stated costs of discussing with me an alternative route to resolution of the case, Something like 3 emails worth from them, asking only what Leigh wanted and offering no counter suggestions, supposedly costing nearly £5,000 worth of time! £10,000 is claimed as the cost of trying to have the Claim thrown out and if unsuecessful, having me thrown out as assistant, Alternatively — which they succeeded in — getting the Statement of Case thrown out. Itis to their credit, however, that they have included in the amended Bundle the Reply to Amended Defence, regardless of their position that this is not admissible without express Court permission, An interesting day ahead next week. Kind regards, Debbi Figueiredo Boating Co-ordinator T 01908 302581 M 07825 832822 Canal & River Trust, First Floor North, Station House, 500 Elder Gate, Milton Keynes, MK9 1BB Share the Space, Drop your Pace Share the space — towpaths are popular places to be enjoyed by everyone. Please be mindful of others, keep dogs under control, and clean up after them. Drop your pace — pedestrians have priority on our towpaths so be ready to slow down; if you're in a hurry, consider using an alternative route for your journey. It’s a special place ~ our waterways are living history, with boats, working locks and low bridges so please give way fo waterway users and be extra careful where visibility is limited, Please visit our website to find out more about the Canal & River Trust. You'll also find lots of useful boating information The Canal & River Trust is a new charity entrusted with the care of 2,000 miles of waterways in England and Wales. Get involved, join us - Visit / Donate / Volunteer at www.canalrivertrust.org.uk - Sign up for our newsletter at www.canaltivertrust.org.uk/newsletter Canal & River Trust is a charitable company limited by guarantee registered in England & Wales with company number 7807276 and charity number 1146792. Registered office address First Floor North, Station House, 500 Elder Gate, Milton Keynes MK9 I BB. Elusen newydd yw Glandyir Cymru sy'n gofalu am 2,000 o filltiroedd o ddyfrffyrdd yng Nghymru a Lloegr. Cymerweh ran, ymunweh 4 ni - Ewch i Rhoddion a Gwirfoddoli yn www.glandwreymru.org.uk Mae Glandvr Cymru yn gwmni cyfyngedig drwy warant a goftestrwyd yng Nghymru a Lloegr gyda thif cwmni 7807276 a rhif elusen goftestredig 1146792. Swyddfa gofrestredig: First Floor North, Station House, 500 Elder Gate, Milton Keynes MK9 1BB.Defendant: Exhibits: “LB2” Date: 31 August 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No: HC-2015-001906 CHANCERY DIVISION BETWEEN: LEIGH RAVENSCROFT jimant and CANAL & RIVER TRUST Defendant THIRD WITNESS STATEMENT OF LUCY EMMA BARRY