Vestas lawyers and the lawyers representing the sacked Vestas workers occupying the Newport site were back in court this morning.
After the case was adjourned last Wednesday by Judge White, Vestas served another possession order on the occupants in an attempt to evict them from the site.
The court has decided to grant the eviction notice.
Judge White said that he was satisfied with the papers being served at the factory rather than the homes.
Detail:
Judge White
Claimant: Adam Rosenthall
Defence: James Fieldsend
Three methods were used to serve the possession orders. They served it at individual’s houses, on the solicitor and in the case where the defendant does not provide an address, they served it by “leaving at that place”.
They had a witness report from Joanne Powis that the orders had been delivered to the home addresses of all defendants and therefore “good service”.
The claimant stated that the defendants had stopped access for personal serving at the offices and rapping up his introduction he said that the defendants cannot show title.
Defense replied that this was down to a question of service, that the claimant was relying on leaving it with an individual, ie. not a building.
He also said that the rules required it not at the last address, but at the last known residence and that the claimant must take reasonable steps to find out the current residence.
“It’s known they are not at their residence” as they are at Vestas.
“Mr Richard West was not allowed access to serve” (the papers)
He pleaded that at the witness needed to provide evidence of his lack of ability to serve papers.
The Judge then said “I understand pizzas with P45s were able to enter, how did they get in? I assume they weren’t posted through the letter box.”
The defense suggested that once again the claimant “didn’t have his house in order.”
The Judge then made the point that the solicitor had actually received the papers, defense said “that is factually correct.” (which we thought was a great quote)
The defense solicitor stated that they were “not authorised to accept service of the papers.”
The claimant said the papers posted to the window was belt and braces, a further means of asserting notice.
The Judge said he was “going to grant an order retrospectively” and continued with “that’s fair and just”.
Defense then came back with “there needs to be evidence, that’s why service wasn’t served.”
Claimant said “last week the defense was complaining that the papers were not served at home.”
Claimant said “another attempt to avoid the inevitable.”
“Indisputable in my opinion, they are done more than enough” to serve the notices.
He then continued, as we know, in a civil court you only need to have “a balance of probabilities.”
It was significant that there was no justification of occupation being submitted.
Then the Judge had his say ….
On 29th July I was satisfied about the named defendants “I do grant the order for …..
It’s clear the defendants solicitors had received information.
“Whether or not defendants know about proceedings and have had sufficient time to meet the claim.”
In my judgement they have had sufficient notice, if not sufficient, “I abridge the period”.
In the claim by the claimants Vestas Blades UK Ltd, the defendants entered without consent. Even if accessed as an employee, this was clearly withdrawn.
“I do grant and make an order for possession.”
Vestas decided not to ask the defendants for costs.
