WOULDHAM PARISH COUNCIL

 

 

MINUTES of an EXTRAORDINARY MEETING of the PARISH COUNCIL held on the

8^th JANUARY, 2008, immediately following the normal monthly meeting of the PARISH COUNCIL, at the VILLAGE HALL, WOULDHAM.

 

PRESENT: Mr. K Malkinson (Chairman), Mr. D Adams, Mrs J Head, Ms. A.Parnell and

       Mr R Stone.

 

 

1. LITIGATION AGAINST THE PARISH COUNCIL: The Chairman reported on the current situation with regard to the possible litigation being brought by Cllr. Fulwell, against the PC in respect of statements made in ‘Response’, a publication issued by the Parish Council, to keep residents informed of matters of interest.

The Clerk reported that so far, the legal costs of employing Michael Oatham of Brachers, Solicitors, amounted to £1304.84 and Members were in agreement that expenditure of this size, was difficult to accept bearing in mind the Parish’s limited funds.

Members discussed, at length, courses of action to recover this money and the Clerk advised that, having consulted the PC’s insurers originally, he had been advised to report back to them if and when the action resulted in court proceedings on the litigation.   However, having spoken to them again recently, he had been informed that because the PC had not sought the assistance of their own legal team, when first registering the action, the PC were not covered to claim in this matter.    Members were very disappointed with this approach from the insurers and asked for their reaction to be made known to the insurers.

 

After considerable discussion, it was suggested that the PC should pursue the reimbursement of their costs from Mr Fulwell, through the Small Claims Court since, had he not attempted to take litigation against the PC, the PC would have had no cause to incur this expenditure.

It was considered that the PC had a duty to recover their costs and when put to the vote, Members were unanimous in their AGREEMENT to pursue the recovery of £1304.84 from Mr Fulwell.     Members AGREED that Mr Fulwell should first be asked to reimburse the PC this sum and if he refused or ignored the request, the PC would make application to the Small Claims Court for reimbursement of these costs.

 

There being no further business to discuss, the meeting closed at 10.10pm

 

Signed as a correct record of the proceedings.

 

 

 

 

Date: 5^th February, 2008.                                             Chairman:………………………………..

Dear Mr Ross,

 

I have some comments on the minutes of the Extraordinary meeting of the parish council of the 8th January.The 1st item listed as litigation of the parish council has some errors.I have never proposed litigation against the parish council. This is a point I made at the beginning of the meeting and I am disappointed to read your draft minutes with the error.This point should read “Litigation against Mr Malkinson and Mr Ross.”In the first paragraph reference is again made to litigation “against the PC” and should also be corrected as above.The same paragraph also describes “Response” as “a publication issued by the parish council”. this is incorrect. The publication was issued by Mr Malkinson and Mr Ross and was noted by the parish council as Mr Malkinsons annual report. the paragraph should read “a publication issued by the chairman as his annual report and noted by the parish council as such”I therefore propose that the amendments above are included in the final agreed minutes.

 Yours sincerely,

Tim Fulwell

 

03 Feb 2008

Dear Mr Ross,

Thank you for your letter of the 20th January 2008.As you are aware I have never threatened legal action against the Parish Council. I have threatened legal action against you and Mr Malkinson regarding Mr Malkinson's Chairmans report which he dubbed “Response” and distributed in the parish, and was noted in the parish minutes as his annual report.  In particular I am not aware of any reason why the parish council would take on a solicitor as the parish is not responsible for the actions of Mr Malkinson in distributing libellous material. Further it is not clear to me why you or Mr Malkinson chose to have the services of a solicitor, when all you were requested to do was answer a simple request to withdraw and apologise for your libellous statements. Yes or No would have sufficed.Regarding the costs involved,I am in whole-hearted agreement that the parish can ill afford such frivolous expenditure. I am appalled that you should even consider asking the parish to pay for costs that you and Mr Malkinson have incurred. If you wish to make such statements then you should at least be prepared to fund them yourself and not expect the public of the parish to pick up the tab.Regarding your assertion that the chairman's annual report was in fact some kind of newsletter produced by the parish council, this is simply not the case. There was no discussion at any meeting regarding the item and no vote to produce such a thing. Indeed true or false it comes across as an attack on me personally, and it was on this basis, and its layout that could be interpreted as from the Parish Council, that many parishioners felt it brought the council into disrepute. Some of these people came to a subsequent parish meeting and said so and some wrote in to the Standards Board. My only consolation was that on polling day many people, mainly strangers to me, expressed their disgust at the report.The Standards Board agreed that the leaflet brought the parish into disrepute, and only decided not to investigate as the parish had, at that time, not spent any money on it, and the issue was therefore not significant enough. I note that at the parish meeting a member of the public specifically stated that the parish should not fund any consequent costs arising from the chairman's report.Clearly while you or Mr Malkinson have managed to commision a solicitor in the name of the parish council for this pointless piece of work I feel you have a moral responsibility to pay for the work done. I should therefore be glad to learn that you and Mr Malkinson have offered to repay the parish council the sum of £1304.84 without delay.Regarding the Parish Councils resolution to issue a Small Claims court summons against me, I must advise that as explained above the parish has no cause to issue the summons and I will apply to have the claim struck out as a misuse of court time. Further I am advised that I am under no legal obligation to pay the council sollicitor's costs. I therefore urge the parish to reconsider and not waste any more money on this issue.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Fulwell

 

10 Feb 2008

Dear Mr Ross,

 

I am appalled that you circulated draft minutes stating that I had threatened Wouldham PC with legal action. You are fully aware that I have never threatened any such action. It was yourself and Mr Malkinson who had been threatened with legal action for your libelous “Response” leaflet and not the parish council.Your actions fall far short of those required of a parish clerk from whom honesty and integrity are required.Mr Malkinson as chairman should not have signed minutes that he knew to be untrue. Mr Stone as vice chairman should not have proposed minutes that he knew to be untrue.Mrs Head should not have seconded minutes that she knew to be untrue.I shall expect you to record in February months minutes my vote against accepting the draft  minutes of the meeting on the 8th January.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Fulwell