Discovering the truth
To understand discovery of the cause of action it is first necessary to understand the background.
- Unlawful plans and unlawful sealing per se are entirely irrelevant, neither, of themselves, can cause loss and damage. I knew about the unlawful 2-lot plans since 1983. The Council had represented that it had processed the 18 lot plan in several parts and on the face of it, because (as I was led to believe) it had issued a Notice of Requirement in relation to the 18-Lot plan this may well have been what had occurred in the Council's mind. It was only upon learning that the Council had not issued the Notice of Requirement of 20th February 1980 in relation to the 18-Lot plan that I was able to demonstrate that the Council's mind was that it had abandoned the 18-lot plan and had knowingly processed the contrived plans in substitution.
- In relation to Tylden Rd the Council had given evidence in the Magistrates Court and Suprmeme Court that it had served a Notice of Requirement in relation to the 18-lot plan. Then during the 1988 County Court proceeding both the Council and Water Authority, on eight separate occasions, admitted that this Notice of Requirement had been served. The Courts and II believed these representations.
- A Notice of Requirement relates to roads which are shown on a plan, in other words it specifically relates to the physical road in much the same way as a road shown on a map relates to the physical road on which you can drive. The road which was shown on the 18 lot plan was one and the same road which was shown on each of the contrive 2-lot plans so as long as I believed that the Notice of Requirement referred to in the Coucil Minutes of 20th February 1980 had been served I could not say that the 18-lot plan had been abandoned and nor could I say that there was no lawful Notice of Requirement relating to the roads shown on the contrived 2-lot plans. A requirement imposed by a Notice of Requirement does not relate to the plan per se, it relates to the road depicted on the plan.
- While I believed that the Notice of Requirement of 20th February 1980 related to the 18 Lot plan had been served it could not be said that the18-lot plan had been abandoned and it was a nonsense to say that the Notices of Requirement which had been served in relation to each of the contrived plans were unlawful and there was no requirement imposed in relation to the roads and water mains.
- My discovery in 2000 was that the Notice of Requirement of 20th February 1980 had not been served at all [see paras 53(d) to 53(h) of my affidavit.] and the Council had in fact abandoned the 18-lot plan. As a consequence of this discovery it followed that each of the contrived plans had been processed separately and the Notices of Requirement served in relation to those plans had no lawful basis.
Discovery
Discovering the truth was not a flash of light, so to speak, triggered by any single thing. The notion of "critical documents" as put forward by Ms. Dixon and Messrs Delany and Ahern was nothing but an overt fabrication which falls into my category of "damn lies". [see Lying Lawyers] My affidavit did not even begin to imply that the complete plans were "critical documents", they were only as critical as getting up that particular morning or as critical as the act of opening the "Black Book".
I had previously looked at the incomplete plans many times and never considered them to be anything other than poorly copied, i.e. A3 copied onto A4 without reduction. It just happened that on this occasion, at that moment, the notion of "clipped" and possibly clipped for a purpose occurred to me. It may be that if I'd been interrupted or had a cup of coffee at that time, this notion may not have occurred at all and they would have remained poor copies in my mind.
On looking at the evidence given in the Magistrates Court, there was a Notice of Requirement dated 20th February 1980 and it specifically purported to relate to a plan which was filed with the Council on 12th February 1980. This Notice had the plan reference number 79305/G on it [see here]. I also had the 18-lot plan and the series of "unlawful" plans which were given in evidence in the Magistrates Court. The 18-lot plan had no reference number at all on it, and each of the "unlawful" plans had a number in large handwriting in the top right hand corner in the order 135199, 135200 etc. and this number was also typed in the middle of each plan [see here]. So on the face of it, the reference number 79305/G was a Council reference number, not a plan number per se, and this is what I had thought to that time.
I then carefully studied the plans and noticed that the reference number on the bottom of the complete plans was similar to that on the Notice of Requirement, i.e. the number on the bottom of the complete plan was 79305/C and the number on the Notice of Requirement was 79305/G.
I then recognised that the complete plan had a lot 2 and a lot "C" on it and it occurred to me that the reference number 79305/C could relate to the alpha lot numbers. [see here]
I looked again at the series of "unlawful" plans given in evidence in the Magistrates Court had the alpha lot numbers E, F, G, H, I and J. [see here]
It was then clear that the plan references 79305/G etc were not Council reference numbers at all they were specific plan reference numbers assigned by the surveyor/draftsman who had prepared them. I realised that the Notice of Requirement given in evidence in the Magistrates Court specifically related to the plan with the lot number "G" on it, and this plan did not even show the complete road. [see here]
So, in the Magistrates Court, the Council had specifically sued me for the overrun of costs of constructing the whole of the road and it had represented:
- that the Notice of Requirement in evidence related to the 18-lot plan which showed all of the roads; and
- that the Notice had been issued pursuant to the Council's minute of 20th February 1980.
Yet on my new understanding of the evidence before me, the Notice of Requirement related to one of the contrived plans and not the 18-lot plan at all. Not only this, the Council appeared to have deliberately "clipped" the "contrived " plans to conceal this fact and in addition submitted an 18-lot plan without any reference numbers at all. .
The only possible reason for fabricating the evidence in this manner was that no Notice of Requirement relating to the true 18-lot plan existed. It followed that the Council had in fact abandoned the 18-lot plan and accepted the contrived "unlawful" plans in knowledge that each was a separate subdivision intended to avoid s.9 of the Sale of Land Act (albeit a mistaken understanding of s.9).
I then reviewed the law very carefully and concluded what I now call the holistic view of the legislation.
Upon forming the holistic view of the legislation, it fell into place with Woodleigh Heights. I now understood what I had learned from the reticulation plan shown to me in the Practice Court. The Council had sealed the plans knowing or without caring that the reticulation system was not complete.
So, it was clear that the Council had assisted the developer, Buchanan, to avoid the "effect" of s.9 of the Sale of Land Act in relation to both Tylden Rd and Woodleigh Heights. The Council had sealed the plans in full knowledge, or with careless disregard for, the fact that the services were not complete and there was no lawful means of compelling construction of those services. Additionally, the Council had sealed the plans in breach of its statutory duty to refuse to seal the plans because:
- in the case of Tylden Rd, there was no planning permit for any one of the discrete subdivisions and there was no lawful Notice of Requirement; and
- in the case of Woodleigh Heights, the planning permit had not been complied with.
This is what the Council and Water Authority had been hiding all along and this, along with the "proviso" explained why they perpetrated the coordinated fraud.
These things constituted the new "causes of action".
The Council had overtly concealed the truth by giving false evidence and falsified documents in the Magistrates Court and Supreme Court anf the Council and Water Authority had further concealed the truth by making false admissions in the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding. These were overt misrepresentations intended to deceive the Court and me. This deception was succesful the Courts manifestly believed that the Notice had been issued in relation to the 18-lot plan as did I.
That I was able to eventually deduce the truth from the documents does not constitute disclosure. It would be a farce if someone could commit the crime of perjury and then avoid the ramifications by saying that the truth was hidden deep in the evidence, you should have known I was lying. This is nonsense.
**********
Top of Page ------ Menu Page