Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
reference to a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report that is now nearly a quarter of a century old
And like a Perthshire single malt, it stands the test of time.
reference to a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report that is now nearly a quarter of a century old
And like a Perthshire single malt, it stands the test of time.
Ha ha!
It's also said that wine mellows with age, unlike your hostility towards Stagecoach.
I'll be hostile to a homophobic bigot- who professes to be a devout and caring Christian whilst disregarding His teachings in just about every single way- until the day I die.
I think this court action is symptomatic of everything that is wrong about how Brian goes about his business. The man is morally bankrupt. Fitting that he's in business with a tax dodger who sued the NHS when he didn't get his own way (I'm sensing a theme here).
He's a very astute businessman, probably one of the best we've had in the UK.
He is astute, there's no doubt about that, but astute in exactly the way the MMC said he was 25 years ago. His "astuteness"- corporate bullying- isn't something to be celebrated, and the fact this "astuteness" is celebrated is a large reason why the current and previous franchising models are such failures.
Conclusion 601. For the reasons given in this judgment, the Claimants’ pension-based challenges fail.
Rail litigation judgement
Stagecoach Group plc ("the Group") notes the decision of the High Court today in respect of its claims against the Secretary of State for Transport regarding decisions to disqualify the Group from three rail franchise competitions. The Court ruled against the Group's claims.
We believe there were important issues which needed to be determined by the court to help secure the future of the country's rail system and our view remains that we were right not to accept the risks in these contracts.
Nevertheless, while we are disappointed at today's ruling, we accept the decision and move on. The country is facing a huge challenge in fighting the Covid-19 pandemic, and all of our energies are focused on ensuring our transport networks help the national effort at this critical time.
I did think Stage Coach might win, given the issues South Western Railway have faced, pre COVID-19 and pre December strikes. However, maybe those were not relevant to pensions issue that Stagecoach raised.It's almost as though the challenge was a baseless fishing trip designed to persuade the DfT to roll over and have its tummy tickled, like it did in 2012.
The only shock for me is that the DfT stood their ground this time. I hope Stagecoach have to pay full costs.
I can understand why Stagecoach didn't want to take on pensions liability, but ultimately if you don't like the rules don't play the game. Other companies were happy to take the risk. Maybe they're wrong and it'll come tumbling down, but that's not the point.
Sadly there's no pithy summary, but Stagecoach brought nine main issues- each with several sub-issues- to Court and lost on every single one. It is clear from the judgement it was a baseless fishing trip. The legal equivalent of flinging enough mud in the hope some will stick.
The sections around the PwC analysis (para 314 onwards) are particularly interesting. DfT got experts in who proved that pensions-compliant bids were sustainable, and Stagecoach attempted to argue that, by getting PwC in, DfT were saying pensions-compliant bids were unfair. A bizarre argument to make; one you'd only make if you knew you were in the wrong but hoped a minor procedural error was made.
I assume that this means the companies who took over would have been able to deal with the pensions.
It's almost as though the challenge was a baseless fishing trip designed to persuade the DfT to roll over and have its tummy tickled, like it did in 2012.
The only shock for me is that the DfT stood their ground this time. I hope Stagecoach have to pay full costs.
I can understand why Stagecoach didn't want to take on pensions liability, but ultimately if you don't like the rules don't play the game. Other companies were happy to take the risk. Maybe they're wrong and it'll come tumbling down, but that's not the point.
Sadly there's no pithy summary, but Stagecoach brought nine main issues- each with several sub-issues- to Court and lost on every single one. It is clear from the judgement it was a baseless fishing trip. The legal equivalent of flinging enough mud in the hope some will stick.
I'm puzzled If Stagecoach were on a fishing expedition then what were Arriva after that persuaded DfT to settle out-of-court with them? You wouldn't offer to settle if you didn't think that the opponent hadn't a hope in hell of winning would you!Arriva settled with DfT just before the trial - Stagecoach did not.
Clearly they weren't sure that they would win! One imagines the DfT would have settled with Stagecoach too if Stagecoach were amenable to reasonable settlements.I'm puzzled If Stagecoach were on a fishing expedition then what were Arriva after that persuaded DfT to settle out-of-court with them? You wouldn't offer to settle if you didn't think that the opponent hadn't a hope in hell of winning would you!
Clearly they weren't sure that they would win! One imagines the DfT would have settled with Stagecoach too if Stagecoach were amenable to reasonable settlements.
Perhaps the Arriva settlement also included a deal for the handback of Northern.
If Stagecoach were on a fishing expedition then what were Arriva after that persuaded DfT to settle out-of-court with them?