propstrike,
pat has a history of recovering multiple airframes from a particularly tough location…plus alot of knowledge about this particular p40 and some of the more ugly goings on behind the scenes. His number one interest is/was Dennis and his family…sometimes this young man seems to have been forgotten. We need more guys like him standing up for Dennis and the thousands like him.

Tell me, what “ugly goings on behind the scenes” does this individual know? Does Pat have any more knowledge of this particular P-40 and the deliberation, arbitration, etc., than any member of the recovery team? If he does, I would love to know it. And I will buy him dinner so he can tell me. As for the pilot, we have continued to search for Dennis behind the scenes, and have found some very interesting information, despite all the false information propagated by the Italians et al. We are not all heartless *******s as depicted by the Forum cognoscenti.

Exactly!! All you know about the P-40 business you gleaned from this forum. And tell me how confident you are that your arguments could stand up in a court of law? And yes, I know of a few forum members that have some if not great knowledge of the issues at hand. Good friends, and I trust and respect their opinions. I do take it personally when those that know nothing about the details of a very delicate and intricate affair are willing to pontificate and effectively accuse someone of wrongdoing, negligence, or incompetence. I have very broad shoulders, both literally and figuratively. I have stood by for over two years and listened to armchair experts tell the world through the forum that we are a bunch of scoundrels and idiots and should not be trusted, when they know nothing of the realities of the exercise. Tell that to the Board of Directors of the RAFM. Without us the Kittyhawk would be in some smelter somewhere between Cairo and Mumbai. And I know that for a fact. What do you know for a fact?

I wrote in general, not specific terms. All I know about the P40 business is what I glean from this forum. It seems that according to you, none of the forum members opinions and knowledge is to be trusted.

Don’t take it all so personally. You need broader shoulders.

Dear Mr Green, You seem to be an expert in these matters, and from your comments you must have been at the many, many of the meetings with the RAFM, British Embassy, Kennet Aviation, law firm, etc. And, the prestigious London law firm that formulated the agreements would love to have your expert opinion on their contract, as they act for so many high net worth individuals, as well as member of the Royal Family, surely they could do with your expertise and insightful opinions. So, since you are the expert and you know so much about the details of the meetings, etc., please tell me firstly, how either party failed to fulfil its part of the contract? Do you know what the terms were? You must if you say it failed. Tell us the terms of the performance bond you propose that they did not? Since you had direct contact with the Embassy in Cairo, what did they tell you about the difficulties in getting to the area of the crash site? How do you deal with foreign armies? You must be an expert. But of course, for you it is very simple. You do this all the time. I wish we had had your wonderful expertise when dealing with the Bedouin who control the area. How do you write a contract with them? And in that contract, how do you define the ransom terms? You must know.

And, as well as Mr Green, I would like to thank all the other arm-chair lawyers and experts on international affairs, contracts, aircraft recovery, etc, for their after the fact contributions. I’m glad you were all there for all the meetings and negotiations. Sadly, I don’t remember your faces.

The Kittyhawk is not dead. It is safe. Not thanks to this forum.

At the very simplest, the contract should have incorporated a performance bond from both sides. The value of each part of the contract is estimated and each party goes to a prime joint stock bank and buys a performance bond. This bond is like an insurance. If the other party does not perform the contract as specified (ex Force Majeure) their bond is forfeit to the other party.

No one gets what they really want but, the innocent don’t lose out financially and the guilty get punished.

These days, I expect it has all changed and everyone gets the Nobel Peace Prize instead.

This is an interesting piece from the RNHF website – ‘The permanent engineering staff now enjoy wearing SERCO overalls as they maintain the aircraft in the hangar. The maintenance support for the RNHF is now part of a multi activity contract here at Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton and relieves the Fly Navy Heritage Trust of the requirement of having to find the income for these salaries’

Seems pretty clear that an element of the RNHF is taxpayer funded .

Roger that. The maintenance support for the RNHF, i.e. the Swordfish, Sea Fury FB11, the Sea Hawk, receive some MoD funds. But not nearly enough to fully operate. These MoD funds are augmented by support from industry and individuals. Without which it would not be able to function. The Sea Fury T20 is on the civil register, is maintained by a civilian A8-20 organisation, is paid for by contributions from one or more benefactors (really one very generous benefactor) and receives no money from the MoD. Quite the contrary.

Its very simple really, the containers were held as a favour and the persons providing storage in the end got fed up or changed their minds, and It co-insided with the owner running into financial difficulties. So they took steps to get their money. The original worthy plan to restore the aircraft being put to one side.
No one in the case seems to come out very well.

How anyone can read the full court judgment and say, “Its very simple really…” is beyond me. Where does one get this inside information about, “held as favour” and “fed up or changed their minds”? What do you know that the judge did not know?

And the “plan to restore the aircraft being put to one side.” Where does that come from? Who in his or her right mind would fly an unrestored aeroplane across the Atlantic? The Gannet had been “restored” to flying condition in the States, and the containers of spares were for longer term support.

Paragraph 19 of the Particulars of Claim set out Shannon Odone’s claim for damages. The claim to the market value of the spares was said to be the subject of expert evidence. But none was adduced. There was a claim for residual loss in value of the Gannet by reason of the absence of spares, loss of income from tooling hire, loss of income from historic aircraft displays caused by the absence of spares, loss of membership and sponsorship revenue, deterioration in the condition of the aircraft whist at Goose Bay and costs of storage and the cost of returning the Gannet to Minnesota from Goose Bay (because it could not be repaired). In addition there was a claim for aggravated damages on the basis (a) that the actions of Ray Middleton were “opportunist, threatening, extremely dishonest and intended to be intimidating towards the Claimant”; and (b) that the denial by HAS of access to Hawarden Airport, the deliberate non-communication with Shannon Odone by HAS and Mr Bartley and “lies told to the police” were threatening and frightening for Shannon Odone and made her feel very vulnerable.
Counsel for Shannon Odone asked that these matters be put off for enquiry once questions of liability had been addressed. I refuse that application. This was the trial of the action. I bear in mind that it came before me on transfer from another venue because another judge felt (at the last minute) unable to take it, that the parties had already suffered the inconvenience of an earlier adjournment, and that the trial was squeezed into what time was available. But it was the scheduled trial. HAS and Caroline Craft came to meet to entire case pleaded against them. It would be most unfair to put them to the worry and expense of a further trial (and absorb resources that could be made available to other litigants) simply because Shannon Odone had not put her evidence in order before trial.
The value of the spares converted by HAS and Mr Middleton is established by the sale price achieved by Mark Petrie: that is £7500. That is the only properly grounded finding that can be made. The more expensive process of taking an account would (on the material I have) yield the same result: that head of relief was (rightly) not pressed.
I dismiss all other damages claims. Quite apart from questions of causation and remoteness (which were simply not addressed at trial and face apparently insurmountable difficulty) there is simply no reliable evidence by reference to which properly to conduct any assessment.
I dismiss the claim for aggravated damages. Shannon Odone became (through her own choice) caught up in some robust commercial dealings as creditors sought to recover money which they felt they were owed by Harry Odone (who they considered owned the Gannet and the spares). She did not put all her cards on the table. They took short cuts to get their money. Mark Petrie in particular was prepared to issue scarcely veiled threats in order to achieve his commercial objectives: but not to Shannon Odone. There was a degree of skulduggery on both sides of the argument, with documents being produced to create or to bolster cases. I am not satisfied that any case for aggravated damages is made out.[/U][/I][/B][/B][/U][/B]
There will accordingly be judgment for the Claimant in the sum of £7500 together with interest on that sum. My provisional view as to the manner in which my discretion to award interest should be exercised is that simple interest at the rate of 2.5% p.a should be awarded from 1 January 2008 (there being no apparent reason why proceedings were issues so late in the day).

‘Named and shamed’, should clear the air a bit! Thanks for the link.

Has anyone here read the court judgement and does anyone here really know the details of the case? Or once again are forumites jumping to uninformed opinions and conclusions?