To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Waterfront: Expensive litigation on the way?
Share this:
From Michael Green.
READING the report in the JEP of 30 July, I find it quite remarkable that Harcourt and WEB are being permitted to submit a joint application to develop the Waterfront in the light of the multi-million dollar lawsuit taking place in Las Vegas as well as the Dublin lawsuit, both of which may take months or years to resolve.
The outcome of both will eventually be decided by courts of law.
Therefore is it not a little premature for WEB as a public-financed government department to join forces with a civil engineering organisation whose main aim in life is to increase its portfolio and profit margin for the benefit of that company’s shareholders before the outcome of those lawsuits is established?
The States of Jersey, who claim to be acting for the people, cannot afford to act with undue haste over this contract without taking the risk of falling foul of expensive litigation in the future.
Finally, in the light of this apparent joint venture between Harcourt and WEB, and the apparent acrimonious relationships between Harcourt and their partners which have emerged as a result of the legal actions held against that organisation, one has to consider whether such acrimony will take place in the future between Harcourt and WEB which will be detrimental to the public purse.
13 Bas du Mont,
Pier Road,
St Helier.
Related