Continued from Part 24.
Letter Porter to HCC Chief Executives 15072019

1. As there was no point of law against the decision of the High Court, the only appeal could be on costs. Brightman J. had awarded costs against Mr Whitfield who was also ordered to pay two thirds of the Respondents costs as well. The Judge gave his permission to appeal the costs saying that if he chose to go there the Court of Appeal would make short work of it.

2. The Judge was right for on the first page of the Consent Order we can see “the said Order in so far as it dealt with costs should be set aside.”

3. However, in the Schedule to the Order on page 5 paragraph 5 it says that “each of the parties shall bear their own costs”

4. Only page 5 is numbered in Mr Porter’s copy but like all other copies shows a misnumbering of the pages, in that page 3 has either gone missing or does not exist.

5. Also of note is that Hampshire County Council now make themselves joint respondents with Mr Connell and Mrs Cooke.

6. Why they felt it necessary to do this when they had not bothered to attend the High Court Case can at present only be a matter of speculation but the question has to be asked if this was to enable the first part of a plan to try to steal the 80 acres of Broxhead Common??

Next time: It is time to take another look at the HCC Land Sub-Committee minutes dated 22nd June 1978. One month after the Court of Appeal hearing.

All 'TCHCC' Parts so far

Click here for the list of all 'TCHCC' Parts so far