Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ESI 1 v ESI 2 - Initial Hearing 01-02/09/2020, Court of Appeal 17/09/2020 (p127)
Comments
-
It's disappointing but let's all calm down and assess things.
Personally I still think it's unlikely they will get a longer injunction and so I truly believe that TS will be the owner of the club by Friday 11th September.2 -
AdTheAddicK said:WattsTheMatter said:Seriously, no point in anyone emailing Chaisty abuse or anything for that matter. All is does is assist Elliott and co casting our fanbase in a bad light.
He is a barrister. He is paid to represent clients. He doesn't necessarily have to agree with them, but it is his job to represent whether he agrees or not.0 -
AdTheAddicK said:WattsTheMatter said:Seriously, no point in anyone emailing Chaisty abuse or anything for that matter. All is does is assist Elliott and co casting our fanbase in a bad light.
He is a barrister. He is paid to represent clients. He doesn't necessarily have to agree with them, but it is his job to represent whether he agrees or not.
Regardless of that, nothing warrants him being emailed, abused or the like. It achieves nothing and just makes us look bad.8 -
JamesSeed said:sillav nitram said:JamesSeed said:blackpool72 said:Yet another week goes by with our transfer embargo in place.
Fuck off Elliott and die a painful death you corrupt peice of shit.
If he’s closed down and asset stripped a girls‘ boarding school he won’t bat an eyelid at destroying an historic London club to make himself a few million quid. I suspect he has a personality disorder.Psychopath.6 -
AdTheAddicK said:WattsTheMatter said:Seriously, no point in anyone emailing Chaisty abuse or anything for that matter. All is does is assist Elliott and co casting our fanbase in a bad light.
He is a barrister. He is paid to represent clients. He doesn't necessarily have to agree with them, but it is his job to represent whether he agrees or not.5 -
cafcfan1990 said:It's disappointing but let's all calm down and assess things.
Personally I still think it's unlikely they will get a longer injunction and so I truly believe that TS will be the owner of the club by Friday 11th September.2 -
WattsTheMatter said:AdTheAddicK said:WattsTheMatter said:Seriously, no point in anyone emailing Chaisty abuse or anything for that matter. All is does is assist Elliott and co casting our fanbase in a bad light.
He is a barrister. He is paid to represent clients. He doesn't necessarily have to agree with them, but it is his job to represent whether he agrees or not.
Regardless of that, nothing warrants him being emailed, abused or the like. It achieves nothing and just makes us look bad.
I don't believe he is allowed to deny the appeal to Court of Appeals which Chaisty brought up at the end. Judge has probably helped as much as possible by only offering a 7 day rule, I'm sure Chaisty would have wanted longer.20 -
roseandcrown said:cafcfan1990 said:It's disappointing but let's all calm down and assess things.
Personally I still think it's unlikely they will get a longer injunction and so I truly believe that TS will be the owner of the club by Friday 11th September.3 -
AdTheAddicK said:WattsTheMatter said:Seriously, no point in anyone emailing Chaisty abuse or anything for that matter. All is does is assist Elliott and co casting our fanbase in a bad light.
He is a barrister. He is paid to represent clients. He doesn't necessarily have to agree with them, but it is his job to represent whether he agrees or not.0 -
stoneroses19 said:WattsTheMatter said:AdTheAddicK said:WattsTheMatter said:Seriously, no point in anyone emailing Chaisty abuse or anything for that matter. All is does is assist Elliott and co casting our fanbase in a bad light.
He is a barrister. He is paid to represent clients. He doesn't necessarily have to agree with them, but it is his job to represent whether he agrees or not.
Regardless of that, nothing warrants him being emailed, abused or the like. It achieves nothing and just makes us look bad.
I don't believe he is allowed to deny the appeal to Court of Appeals which Chaisty brought up at the end. Judge has probably helped as much as possible by only offering a 7 day rule, I'm sure Chaisty would have wanted longer.7 - Sponsored links:
-
What bearing will yesterday's decision have on the judge at the court of appeal? Will he have to acknowledge that the injunction was refused twice? Do they get to submit new evidence to the court of appeal?0
-
WishIdStayedinthePub said:He has really not enjoyed being bested by a young girl, has he. It's really eating his noodle.
Show some respect. She's a woman, not a young girl. Didn't her tweets refer to having a daughter going off to university?
4 -
stoneroses19 said:WattsTheMatter said:AdTheAddicK said:WattsTheMatter said:Seriously, no point in anyone emailing Chaisty abuse or anything for that matter. All is does is assist Elliott and co casting our fanbase in a bad light.
He is a barrister. He is paid to represent clients. He doesn't necessarily have to agree with them, but it is his job to represent whether he agrees or not.
Regardless of that, nothing warrants him being emailed, abused or the like. It achieves nothing and just makes us look bad.
I don't believe he is allowed to deny the appeal to Court of Appeals which Chaisty brought up at the end. Judge has probably helped as much as possible by only offering a 7 day rule, I'm sure Chaisty would have wanted longer.
2 -
cafcpolo said:Clarky said:blackpool72 said:Clarky said:Scratchingvalleycat said:The judge has given them seven days to seek permission from the Court of Appeal to allow them to lodge an appeal. This will be one appeal judge hearing from a QC that another judge has misled himself to sufficiently misinterpret the situation in the decision he came to. Most of these fail since it is unusual for the appeal court judge to try and second guess the original judge. However, Judge Pearce did not give them the right to appeal to himself which means he has stood by his decision but has given Chaisty a chance to appeal to seek the right to appeal from another judge, but this must be heard within the seven days. Judge Pearce gave as part of his reasoning yesterday that the club itself was at risk if he granted their injuction. This will be noted by the appeal court jusge deciding whether to give Lex Dominus the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal (three judges sitting in several months time). However I think it may be possible for the appeal court judge to grant them right to an appeal but not extend the injunction on the grounds of the damage that would likely cause.
My guess is that this is buying time for his client to try and secure a payment from Sandgaaed to go away. Unintentional legalised blackmail?
Please God you are correct1 -
MattF said:What bearing will yesterday's decision have on the judge at the court of appeal? Will he have to acknowledge that the injunction was refused twice? Do they get to submit new evidence to the court of appeal?
The facts are the judge has awarded this against Chaisty. Like any appeal, it can be reversed but Elliott lost the injunction and has to pay Panorama's costs. The fact he is appealing is the important bit, he's appealing because he LOST. Let's all remember that.6 -
Worst thing, for me, is that this is obviously correct. We all know that the minute TS pays Panorama, Panorama is going to transfer the money to Nimar's account and then fold, leaving Lex Dominus to try and sue the former director of a no-longer-existent business in the UAE's courts. I honestly cannot see how the injunction will not be extended until the trial on that basis, because otherwise you are offering a remedy that everyone knows is not really a remedy.
2 -
SteveKielyCambridge said:Worst thing, for me, is that this is obviously correct. We all know that the minute TS pays Panorama, Panorama is going to transfer the money to Nimar's account and then fold, leaving Lex Dominus to try and sue the former director of a no-longer-existent business in the UAE's courts. I honestly cannot see how the injunction will not be extended until the trial on that basis, because otherwise you are offering a remedy that everyone knows is not really a remedy.0
-
ForeverAddickted said:Unlike London, Manchester could take trial in November so in order to achieve a speedy trial strong argument to hold it in Manchester. Declines transfer.
Well, we are under an transfer embargo so I'm not surprised.
3 -
SteveKielyCambridge said:Worst thing, for me, is that this is obviously correct. We all know that the minute TS pays Panorama, Panorama is going to transfer the money to Nimar's account and then fold, leaving Lex Dominus to try and sue the former director of a no-longer-existent business in the UAE's courts. I honestly cannot see how the injunction will not be extended until the trial on that basis, because otherwise you are offering a remedy that everyone knows is not really a remedy.2
-
SteveKielyCambridge said:Worst thing, for me, is that this is obviously correct. We all know that the minute TS pays Panorama, Panorama is going to transfer the money to Nimar's account and then fold, leaving Lex Dominus to try and sue the former director of a no-longer-existent business in the UAE's courts. I honestly cannot see how the injunction will not be extended until the trial on that basis, because otherwise you are offering a remedy that everyone knows is not really a remedy.4
- Sponsored links:
-
WattsTheMatter said:stoneroses19 said:WattsTheMatter said:AdTheAddicK said:WattsTheMatter said:Seriously, no point in anyone emailing Chaisty abuse or anything for that matter. All is does is assist Elliott and co casting our fanbase in a bad light.
He is a barrister. He is paid to represent clients. He doesn't necessarily have to agree with them, but it is his job to represent whether he agrees or not.
Regardless of that, nothing warrants him being emailed, abused or the like. It achieves nothing and just makes us look bad.
I don't believe he is allowed to deny the appeal to Court of Appeals which Chaisty brought up at the end. Judge has probably helped as much as possible by only offering a 7 day rule, I'm sure Chaisty would have wanted longer.0 -
stoneroses19 said:
I don't believe he is allowed to deny the appeal to Court of Appeals which Chaisty brought up at the end. Judge has probably helped as much as possible by only offering a 7 day rule, I'm sure Chaisty would have wanted longer.0 -
I fear the worst now3
-
SteveKielyCambridge said:Worst thing, for me, is that this is obviously correct. We all know that the minute TS pays Panorama, Panorama is going to transfer the money to Nimar's account and then fold, leaving Lex Dominus to try and sue the former director of a no-longer-existent business in the UAE's courts. I honestly cannot see how the injunction will not be extended until the trial on that basis, because otherwise you are offering a remedy that everyone knows is not really a remedy.3
-
BR7_addick said:paulie8290 said:ForeverAddickted said:The judge has effectively said that he doesn't believe Sandgaard's interest in buying Charlton will be affected by a short delay.
Less time to get new players in
The 5 players Bowyer has lined up may ho elsewhere
Matthews may go elsewhere.
Seriously what is the point in holding up the sale, all its gonna do is mess up our season3 -
cafcfan1990 said:
That's besides the point though. At this moment in time there's nothing saying that Nimer owes Elliott one penny. No Judge should award an injunction on the basis that Nimer will run with the money because legally, he doesn't owe Elliott one penny yet.
I most certainly hope that you are right, and I am definitely no legal expert so you probably are.
0 -
Talal said:SteveKielyCambridge said:Worst thing, for me, is that this is obviously correct. We all know that the minute TS pays Panorama, Panorama is going to transfer the money to Nimar's account and then fold, leaving Lex Dominus to try and sue the former director of a no-longer-existent business in the UAE's courts. I honestly cannot see how the injunction will not be extended until the trial on that basis, because otherwise you are offering a remedy that everyone knows is not really a remedy.3
-
So the big issue is more wether they are allowed to extend the injunction, something they have been advised against?1
-
SteveKielyCambridge said:cafcfan1990 said:
That's besides the point though. At this moment in time there's nothing saying that Nimer owes Elliott one penny. No Judge should award an injunction on the basis that Nimer will run with the money because legally, he doesn't owe Elliott one penny yet.
I most certainly hope that you are right, and I am definitely no legal expert so you probably are.
BUT, let's not forget that no judgement has been passed that said Panorama owe Elliott a penny. It's dangerous for a judge to assume what Nimer might do, it's essentially throwing accusations around.2 -
ross1 said:SteveKielyCambridge said:Worst thing, for me, is that this is obviously correct. We all know that the minute TS pays Panorama, Panorama is going to transfer the money to Nimar's account and then fold, leaving Lex Dominus to try and sue the former director of a no-longer-existent business in the UAE's courts. I honestly cannot see how the injunction will not be extended until the trial on that basis, because otherwise you are offering a remedy that everyone knows is not really a remedy.0
This discussion has been closed.