PLEASE DO NOT COPY OR SHARE INFORMATION FROM THIS WEBSITE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR ©DOA 2020
www.losclaveles.eu | email@example.com | Privacy statement
This website is hosted and managed independently by Roger Barrow and views expressed are not necessarily shared by Wimpen
Join the DOA Facebook
group to meet friendly
JOIN OUR MAILING LIST
Join our mailing list and be the first to hear news and forthcoming important announcements
This is a PRIVATE mailing list and independent of both the Club and Wimpen
Owners will have recently received a letter from Sr Castro of WimPen with the Arbitration Part Award,and letters from the Club Chairman denying Sr Castro’s comments.
Our researcher and club member, Tony Burford, reveals the Club Chairman’s duplicity in this analysis of the Arbitration Part award and Mr Fletcher’s recent letter . . . . .
Although it may seem a daunting task to read the 80 page Part Award circulated by Snr Castro, it is clearly understandable (other than coping with the use of some archaic Scots wording) and well-
The Chairman’s clear intention was to discredit Snr Castro’s statement and to imply that the Arbitrator had found that the allocation of their Membership Certificates was unlawful and invalid.
However, Para 22.1.13 has to be read in the context of the entire Part Award. It is the decision on the 13th Order requested by Wimpen and that is the subject of Paras 18.16 to 18.25, 18.54 & 18.55. It is specifically stated in Para 18.25 that (my emphasis added)
“Given the above, I cannot make a positive order to the effect that what has happened in this regard has been lawful and valid. I would emphasise that that is not to say that I am making any finding to the effect that what has been done is unlawful and invalid, simply that I find myself unable on the basis of the evidence presented, to make the order sought.”
and in Para 18.55.2 that (my emphasis added)
“As a matter of clarification, I do not make a finding that the allocation and transfer of Membership certificates by the Claimants since 1 August 2015 in respect of “Cancelled Weeks” was unlawful and invalid. I simply do not have evidence in front of me which allows a decision to be taken either way. For that reason I have declined to make the order sought.”
As can be seen Snr Castro’s statement was entirely correct.
The only other requested Order that was not granted was the 16th relating to Roger Barrow’s Club Membership.
If para 22.1.16 is read in vacuo it might be assumed, and no doubt the Chairman would purport, that the refusal to afford Roger the recognition and right of Club Membership was not ultra vires (i.e. beyond the scope of the Committee). However, that Order is the subject of Paras 18.47 to 18.52, 18.60 & 18.61. It is specifically stated in Para 18.52 that (my emphasis added)
As with the position in relation to Order Thirteen sought,
“I emphasise that this does not amount to a finding that any refusals by theRespondent to recognise and afford rights of membership to Mr Barrow are valid. It is simply that I do not have a basis in the evidence presented to make the order sought.”
and in Para 18.61.2 that (my emphasis added):
“To be clear, however, I do not make a finding that the Respondent’s refusal is valid. I simply find that I do not have evidence available to make the order.”
In view of his duplicity regarding Para 22.1.13, I suspect that the quotations from the final stage of the arbitration stated in the beginning of the Chairman’s letter of 17th May have been taken out of context. So Snr Castro has been asked to provide to Club Members a copy of the final stage. The rationale for his circulating the Part Award would appear to apply also to the final stage.
There is no point in asking the Chairman to do so because he continues to refuse to make the Part Award available to Members, despite a reasoned request to do so.
Tony Burford, Club Member 9 June 2021