Press re the HDV

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by 1vut8bf3om5m9 on October 29, 2017 at 21:15

Reading the put-up Claimant's solicitors' own writing, he would appear to be prosecuting on three bases--

1) The Council acted in an ultra virus way in setting up the venture via as an LLP as opposed to a limited company;

2) There wasn't proper public consultation; and,

3) The Council breached its own bye-laws somehow in setting up the HDV in the first place.

On the face of it, even if this social justice solicitor's firm can win on one or more of the foregoing grounds, I don't see how this isn't just something that will delay (and therefore add more cost to) the process.  The council can go back and public consult, it can set up the venture in a limited company and it can follow its bye laws at each step and still carry the HDV.

But of course delay itself might be sufficient, as it is hoped different sorts of Labour councillors in the meantime types take power and drop the project.

I would be interested to know what if any damages to the other JV party(ies) the Council faces if it has to breach the JV because of all this--I doubt anyone has contemplated that issue at any point to date.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on October 29, 2017 at 23:41

If they did a proper consultation, retained a veto (51% ownership) and put their promises they've made in writing then I don't see a problem. The fact that they won't even do ONE of these things tells you all you need to know.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by OleMiss on November 3, 2017 at 10:16

"I doubt anyone has contemplated that issue at any point to date."

The issue is a significant feature of the opposition to the HDV.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on October 29, 2017 at 23:42

Dave Hill was not at all interested in the St Ann's debacle four years ago either. He's just someone of a certain age who was too embarrassed to join the Tories at the time.

• ▶ Reply