Jump to content

Plans for lord street


Blaine

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, garymanx said:

So another proposed development for Lord Street appears to be heading down the Swanee ?

What is going on now ? - http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=45083&headline=In

 

 

No. That was is one of the interested parties, who didn’t get the contract to redevelop. The appointed developer, Kane Ltd, has put in for planning. That’s not been withdrawn.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, John Wright said:

No. That was is one of the interested parties, who didn’t get the contract to redevelop. The appointed developer, Kane Ltd, has put in for planning. That’s not been withdrawn.

Hasnt the developer that miraculously won the bid after the other successful winner mysteriously got dropped got strong connections to the DfE? 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Hasnt the developer that miraculously won the bid after the other successful winner mysteriously got dropped got strong connections to the DfE? 

His dad is Chair of Business Isle of Man agency but so what? They won a new bid - they didn’t simply pick up the pieces of the previous separate one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Twitch said:

His dad is Chair of Business Isle of Man agency but so what? They won a new bid - they didn’t simply pick up the pieces of the previous separate one.

So you dont think it’s odd that a company thinks it’s won a bid with IOMG, and then a month later someone whose dad has a contract with the IOMG wins the very same bid despite the fact the original bidder seems to think they had already won it? 

The actual ruling is here. Looks like the same bid to me despite what you said

https://www.judgments.im/content/J2470.htm

Deemsters conclusion which seems to be basically urging them to settle out of court. Probably more of our cash spent making this go away. 

”48. I conclude by stating that, on the key issue of contention in this application, I am persuaded that the Applicants have a potential and arguable cause of action and that the Respondent is likely (perhaps with others) to be a party to subsequent proceedings. I am also persuaded that the remaining requirements of Rule 7.45 are satisfied and that in particular disclosure before proceedings have started is desirable in order both to dispose fairly of the anticipated proceedings and to assist the dispute to be resolved without proceedings, and to save costs. Subject to further submissions on the precise content and scope of the order, I am persuaded that an order for pre-action disclosure is appropriate in this case.”

Edited by thesultanofsheight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Twitch said:

It was retendered according to the article. Was Mr B anything to do with DED at the time? This was 2016 wasn’t it? The paper says that Kane submitted planning in August 2018 so 2 years later.

According to the IOM Newspapers News article (how well researched are they?) but I was reading the court summary which I linked too. See Eversheds letter to the DOI which is quite illuminating. The judges conclusion seems clear; likely out of court settlement to stop further costly litigation.  

Edited by thesultanofsheight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...