Quote: Chairman Miaow "Many posters have expressed incredulity that the council have missed this loophole (which to be honest sounds like something that any competent lawyer should have found and remedied in short order). But I would like to know how the trusts own lawyers missed this - who were the lawyers for the trust anyway? In an earlier post it was stated that all parties signed the flawed agreement - I assume, of course, that the trust were one of these parties - so our own legal team has also messed up badly, not just the council. If you sign an agreement without properly scrutinising it, the results can be unpredictable and disappointing. Not looking to have a go at anyone, just pointing out that we can't just blame the council or everyone else when things go pear shaped...the Trust have also failed to spot this "loophole" in the agreement...'"
The Stadium Trust is
NOT party to the Section 106 Agreement. The 106 Agreement is a UNILATERAL UNDERTAKING given by 3 Parties (Yorkcourt, Yorkcourts Bank (as morgagee) and another landowner to a single party which is WAKEFIELD MDC who are the beneficiary of the Agreement.
As the Stadium Trust is not party to the agreement they would not have seen the agreement nor be expected to have it checked by Lawyers. That is the responsibility of whom the unilateral undertaking is given to and that responsibly falls squarely on the shoulders of the Council.
By the way if you wish to read the Section 106 Agreement it's on the Council's Planning Portal, that is where I read it.
