Re costs and payment of Counsel - Barristers and especially those at the top of their profession are not financially stupid. Brief fees are usually paid up front and in tranches over the period leading up to the trial as Counsel reads in to the case. This of course means that if the case settles before trial they still get paid and will have had their money before trial
I imagine El Kashashy might be paying the bills anyway?
Isn’t this just legal protocol? They are within their rights to request an appeal, which they have done. The judge has granted them 7 days to get their appeal request submitted, reviewed and decided upon. It sounds to me that the likelihood of the appeal being approved to go to the Appeals Court is remote but I’m no legal expert. But, wasn’t the judge legally bound to allow this request to be reviewed once it was made?
Re costs and payment of Counsel - Barristers and especially those at the top of their profession are not financially stupid. Brief fees are usually paid up front and in tranches over the period leading up to the trial as Counsel reads in to imagine El Kashashy might be paying the bills anyway?
No idea whose paying but someone is - cash up front.
What has happened here is that the Judge has ruled against the injunction and declined to give leave to appeal. Panorama has won. Judges do not like getting appealed. I did wonder with the nature of his summing up yesterday whether he was setting his judgement up for scrutiny in case of appeal covering all bases , his thoughts and legal processes so that should an appeal come, he would not look foolish to a higher court. In English law, if a judge does not give leave to appeal then the appellant can apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal. That’s all that will be happening in the next seven days - the respective legal teams will put down in writing why they are right and this will go to a senior judge - a lord justice of appeal and that judge will decide whether there has been sufficient in the hearing of the case to justify an appeal. There are set guidelines and timings and no face to face hearing. If there is and the trial judge has gone out of his way to say there isn’t (and put his head on the block a bit) then the matter will go to a hearing but by the time the Court of Appeal get around to hearing it - solely on the injunction - the main case in November will have been heard. Most appeals of this nature fail but what it does do is keep the appellant in the game.
It would take something major to make the COA change a decision, but I trust Panorama won't ask Marian to do their submission...
I would have thought that the injunction would be extended until the main court case back in Manchester in November. Whether the Court of Appeal could hear the injunction case in between who knows. The Court of Appeal listings are usually quite full and generally you have to wait ages to get a date - whether anything could be expedited as a result of the urgency of the situation I don’t know
So, they only have to make a credible argument that they have a case for an appeal to effectively secure the injunction they were refused yesterday, during which time the club goes out of business demonstrating why the injunction was refused.
I would have thought that the injunction would be extended until the main court case back in Manchester in November. Whether the Court of Appeal could hear the injunction case in between who knows. The Court of Appeal listings are usually quite full and generally you have to wait ages to get a date - whether anything could be expedited as a result of the urgency of the situation I don’t know
So, they only have to make a credible argument that they have a case for an appeal to effectively secure the injunction they were refused yesterday, during which time the club goes out of business demonstrating why the injunction was refused.
That would be a proper Charlton way to go under!
Can they do that though, as @killerandflash says just above your post... Its gonna have to be a damned good reason
So if the court of appeal deny their leave to appeal before the 7 days are up does the rest of that 7 day injunction still stand or is it hull and void at that point as it was only given in order to allow the court of appeal application?
So if the court of appeal deny their leave to appeal before the 7 days are up does the rest of that 7 day injunction still stand or is it hull and void at that point as it was only given in order to allow the court of appeal application?
I think @Arkwright mentions further up this page that the moment the Appeal gets rejected, the injunction ends too
I would have thought that the injunction would be extended until the main court case back in Manchester in November. Whether the Court of Appeal could hear the injunction case in between who knows. The Court of Appeal listings are usually quite full and generally you have to wait ages to get a date - whether anything could be expedited as a result of the urgency of the situation I don’t know
So, they only have to make a credible argument that they have a case for an appeal to effectively secure the injunction they were refused yesterday, during which time the club goes out of business demonstrating why the injunction was refused.
That would be a proper Charlton way to go under!
Can they do that though, as @killerandflash says just above your post... Its gonna have to be a damned good reason
Isn't that a reference to winning an appeal, rather than having grounds for one being heard accepted? Not sure. Although, obviously today's judge ruled there were no grounds.
Please please please tell me that judges behave like VAR referee's and do everything possible to not overturn their colleagues decisions (is it too late to call Peter Walton to the bar)
Very helpful summary that answers some key questions. Grounds for cautious optimism that the delay should be just 7 days. Bad enough for Lee Bowyer and the team but hopefully not material to TS’s determination to buy CAFC.
Please please please tell me that judges behave like VAR referee's and do everything possible to overturn their colleagues decisions (is it too late to call Peter Walton to the bar)
We dont want the CoA to overturn the decision though do we
Please please please tell me that judges behave like VAR referee's and do everything possible to overturn their colleagues decisions (is it too late to call Peter Walton to the bar)
We dont want the CoA to overturn the decision though do we
It's probably already been answered but what is the timescale for this process if it's simply a judge reading through a submission, could it theoretically be submitted in the morning and a decision reached by the afternoon?
I would imagine PE’s team are going to be playing this tactically, they need to take as much time as possible to submit the appeal but ensure they leave enough time to get a decision before the 7 days.
I would have thought that the injunction would be extended until the main court case back in Manchester in November. Whether the Court of Appeal could hear the injunction case in between who knows. The Court of Appeal listings are usually quite full and generally you have to wait ages to get a date - whether anything could be expedited as a result of the urgency of the situation I don’t know
So, they only have to make a credible argument that they have a case for an appeal to effectively secure the injunction they were refused yesterday, during which time the club goes out of business demonstrating why the injunction was refused.
Too many get mixed up with the emotions of Charlton and a potential new owner's intentions.
I said this a couple of weeks ago, to all of us supporters it's emotions. The last thing we want to see is any of these criminal scum getting a payday after trying to destroy our club. To TS it's just business. The only worry is if scumbag 2 win or look for a payday to walk away just how much are they going to try & get & if TS thinks it's worth it.
I would imagine PE’s team are going to be playing this tactically, they need to take as much time as possible to submit the appeal but ensure they leave enough time to get a decision before the 7 days.
Maybe I'm missing something but why do they need to take as much time as possible to submit the appeal? I'd have thought they'd want to get it in pretty sharpish so there's less risk of the COA not deciding before Wednesday.
I would imagine PE’s team are going to be playing this tactically, they need to take as much time as possible to submit the appeal but ensure they leave enough time to get a decision before the 7 days.
They need to appeal ASAP I’d have thought as they only have seven days for the Court of Appeal to schedule the case and who knows who is available to read through it all and make a decision.
Comments
Or do LD get to present an explanation as to why they feel that Pearce was "irrational, unreasonable or wrong"
That would be a proper Charlton way to go under!
Does it mean Lauren and her team get to see that and offer their own explanation as to why they think LD's explanation is bullshit?
My head hurts. Goodnight.
Grounds for cautious optimism that the delay should be just 7 days. Bad enough for Lee Bowyer and the team but hopefully not material to TS’s determination to buy CAFC.