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.
Following this would it be possible to perhaps waste there time or would they have already have the appeal ready? IE flood them with telephone and email enquiry to waste there time.
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.
Following this would it be possible to perhaps waste there time or would they have already have the appeal ready? IE flood them with telephone and email enquiry to waste there time.
I once heard the term 'vexatious litigation', which is supposed to be some kind of naughty legal carry on which is recognised in law as naughty. Something like using legal process, I suppose using loopholes and further opportunities to the nth degree in order to continue to pursue an unwinnable and reasonably decided case. Are these Lex Dominican Monks going into vexatious litigation waters?
I’d say they are close @seth plum and certainly I think they are pushing in it but unfortunately I don’t think that is provable because all the dealings where Farnell is involved seem to be slightly off record and the fact that they are all proven to be super self interested and rip off merchants (balance of evidence proves that) is difficult to apply specifically to us. We know they are ripping the shit out us and the legal system but that’s hard to prove.
The seven day injunction is a little frustrating but, in the greater scheme of things, I don’t think it is a significant setback. If a deal can be crunched, there’s no reason why it can’t be concluded next Wednesday. One slight qualification to that arises out of the Judge’s statement, just after he granted a seven day injunction, that “I am not encouraging this but will give either party liberty to apply”. If I understood it correctly, it might be possible that, if the Claimant is not going to be able to get their application before a Lord Justice of Appeal for, say, nine days because of a congested list, they might seek a short extension from Judge Pearce.
The Claimant’s application for permission to appeal will be dealt with by a single Lord Justice on paper without an oral hearing, unless one is directed (which I very much doubt). Elliot faces an uphill struggle and hopefully the application will be dismissed, thereby drawing a line under his spoiling tactics.
As to Chaisty’s moan about Lauren’s role in the Trust and her innocuous tweet thanking people for their messages, the Claimant is understandably highly sensitive about Farnell’s professional position and issues of conflict generally. As well as an attempting to somehow undermine Panorama’s case, Chaisty’s complaint struck me as containing more than an element of tit-for-tat, as well as giving vent to a touch of peevishness and personal frustration on his part. Observing that the irony would not be lost on Farnell is risible, as was the pious insinuation in his comment that “I assume that all relevant matters have been put before the court”. Unlike Farnell, Lauren has only acted on behalf of one party only and has done so with commensurate professionalism. To suggest that her tweet or her involvement in the Trust is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in the profession is absurd.
There was more than a smell of desperation in Chaisty’s attempt to introduce ‘evidence’ from the footballleagueworld.co.uk website and his ‘on the hoof’ references to Thomas Sandgaard in ‘London News’. Something of a volte face from yesterday, when he made much of the fact that Mihail had offered no evidence that a sale was imminent.
The principal judgment on Tuesday turned upon a careful evaluation of relevant factors by the Judge and I do not believe that his decision was wrong, irrational or outside a range of reasonable decisions. Let’s hope that, if the Claimant’s paper application manages to get in front of a Lord Justice by next Tuesday, it is given the short shrift it deserves.
I once heard the term 'vexatious litigation', which is supposed to be some kind of naughty legal carry on which is recognised in law as naughty. Something like using legal process, I suppose using loopholes and further opportunities to the nth degree in order to continue to pursue an unwinnable and reasonably decided case. Are these Lex Dominican Monks going into vexatious litigation waters?
A vexatious litigant is someone who constantly brings cases to court, most of them completely groundless.
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.
Following this would it be possible to perhaps waste there time or would they have already have the appeal ready? IE flood them with telephone and email enquiry to waste there time.
After going to the pub tonight (and just returned not reading the previous few hundred posts) I thought I'd not really care what happened today but it still rankles that there is a possibility that some people are in it just for the money and have no regard for the best interests of the club.
While o agree he would have found such comments, o am not sure that he should have been allowed to admit them as new evidence today particularly given he refused to admit similar evidence yesterday.
While o agree he would have found such comments, o am not sure that he should have been allowed to admit them as new evidence today particularly given he refused to admit similar evidence yesterday.
Agreed. Anything posted on social media is conjecture
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.
Can the COA increase the injunction time so as to give time to hear the appeal ? All that is happening next week is that a judge sitting at the COA is deciding whether an appeal can go ahead. If he/she decides that it can surely they will say the injunction has to be extended or what is the point of the appeal.
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.
Can the COA increase the injunction time so as to give time to hear the appeal ? All that is happening next week is that a judge sitting at the COA is deciding whether an appeal can go ahead. If he/she decides that it can surely they will say the injunction has to be extended or what is the point of the appeal.
I think that if he granted leave to appeal they would immediately ask for the 7 day injunction to be extended. Whether that would be included as a contingent in the papers they submit I don’t know.
Crooks these days always seem to the upper hand, whether that is down to leniency or corruption I do not know, but the law no longer seems to favour justice or honesty.
In my opinion it never did. I found out the hard way that basically if you can get enough people to lie and keep a straight face then innocence doesn’t even come into it. In my case a doctor I’d never met swore that I said certain things in a meeting that he stated he attended. I’ve never met him or ever heard of him prior to him giving evidence. Happened to be a friend of the family I was contesting a case against. So it comes down to who can make up the most convincing story, whether it’s true or not. The law is an ass. I’ve no faith in justice.
Let’s see which way the rope swings, all we do know is we are surrounded by crooks, with enough money to hire highly paid QC’s. How some of these guys live with themselves is beyond me.
At any point in these hearings have we gout out explicitly why ESI2 haven’t completed the deal they claim to have? There’s obviously some contingency they have failed to satisfy
We assume it’s the EFL tests, but do we know that?
If that was the case the judge wouldn’t have given them 7 more days .
This was a jokey reference to CAFC history of appeals within the football world. You may recall an appeal to have red card/booking rescinded ended up with a higher penalty as it was deemed frivolous.
Pearce's decision was that the risk to the club's existence outweighed the risk of damage to Lex Dominus. The CoA would have to fundamentally disagree with that and see that ruling as irrational to grant the appeal.
Pearce's decision was that the risk to the club's existence outweighed the risk of damage to Lex Dominus. The CoA would have to fundamentally disagree with that and see that ruling as irrational to grant the appeal.
How could that possibly be irrational?
It's not.
But this is Charlton. We'll probably get a judge who hates football or supports Palace or who once had lunch with Farnell.
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.
Can the COA increase the injunction time so as to give time to hear the appeal ? All that is happening next week is that a judge sitting at the COA is deciding whether an appeal can go ahead. If he/she decides that it can surely they will say the injunction has to be extended or what is the point of the appeal.
This is an extract from CAST's summary which, together with Blucher's post, is an excellent summary and reassuring.
"If Lex Dominus are granted leave to appeal they are likely to want to then apply for the injunction to be extended while the appeal is heard because otherwise the club could be sold before the appeal is heard.
This is a totally separate decision which might be decided by the Court of Appeal or they might refer it back to Judge Pearce. The balance of convenience would then come into play again. If a further two weeks’ (for example) delay was reckoned to threaten the club's existence then an extension would be unlikely to be granted."
Though nothing is certain until TS has donned scarfy, we can be sure that if this request were to be made, with the league season and closing of the transfer window looming closer still, LK could make a strong case that an extension (other than for a very limited time) beyond 9 Sept would indeed run the risk of material damage to CAFC, of which Judge Pearce was mindful in his original denial of the injunction.
At any point in these hearings have we gout out explicitly why ESI2 haven’t completed the deal they claim to have? There’s obviously some contingency they have failed to satisfy
We assume it’s the EFL tests, but do we know that?
I'd like to see some concrete proof of Elliott's financial investment?
Comments
Are these Lex Dominican Monks going into vexatious litigation waters?
The seven day injunction is a little frustrating but, in the greater scheme of things, I don’t think it is a significant setback. If a deal can be crunched, there’s no reason why it can’t be concluded next Wednesday. One slight qualification to that arises out of the Judge’s statement, just after he granted a seven day injunction, that “I am not encouraging this but will give either party liberty to apply”. If I understood it correctly, it might be possible that, if the Claimant is not going to be able to get their application before a Lord Justice of Appeal for, say, nine days because of a congested list, they might seek a short extension from Judge Pearce.
The Claimant’s application for permission to appeal will be dealt with by a single Lord Justice on paper without an oral hearing, unless one is directed (which I very much doubt). Elliot faces an uphill struggle and hopefully the application will be dismissed, thereby drawing a line under his spoiling tactics.
As to Chaisty’s moan about Lauren’s role in the Trust and her innocuous tweet thanking people for their messages, the Claimant is understandably highly sensitive about Farnell’s professional position and issues of conflict generally. As well as an attempting to somehow undermine Panorama’s case, Chaisty’s complaint struck me as containing more than an element of tit-for-tat, as well as giving vent to a touch of peevishness and personal frustration on his part. Observing that the irony would not be lost on Farnell is risible, as was the pious insinuation in his comment that “I assume that all relevant matters have been put before the court”. Unlike Farnell, Lauren has only acted on behalf of one party only and has done so with commensurate professionalism. To suggest that her tweet or her involvement in the Trust is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in the profession is absurd.
There was more than a smell of desperation in Chaisty’s attempt to introduce ‘evidence’ from the footballleagueworld.co.uk website and his ‘on the hoof’ references to Thomas Sandgaard in ‘London News’. Something of a volte face from yesterday, when he made much of the fact that Mihail had offered no evidence that a sale was imminent.
The principal judgment on Tuesday turned upon a careful evaluation of relevant factors by the Judge and I do not believe that his decision was wrong, irrational or outside a range of reasonable decisions. Let’s hope that, if the Claimant’s paper application manages to get in front of a Lord Justice by next Tuesday, it is given the short shrift it deserves.
You make it sound pretty straightforward.
Unfortunately nothing is where Charlton are concerned.
Is it likely to go ahead, yes it is.
Is it a scenario that TS planned for, yes it is.
Is the champagne going to go off in my fridge in a week, no it's not.
Stay cool team, this is still looking very good.
RIP GT
How could that possibly be irrational?
But this is Charlton. We'll probably get a judge who hates football or supports Palace or who once had lunch with Farnell.
This is an extract from CAST's summary which, together with Blucher's post, is an excellent summary and reassuring.
"If Lex Dominus are granted leave to appeal they are likely to want to then apply for the injunction to be extended while the appeal is heard because otherwise the club could be sold before the appeal is heard.
This is a totally separate decision which might be decided by the Court of Appeal or they might refer it back to Judge Pearce. The balance of convenience would then come into play again. If a further two weeks’ (for example) delay was reckoned to threaten the club's existence then an extension would be unlikely to be granted."
Though nothing is certain until TS has donned scarfy, we can be sure that if this request were to be made, with the league season and closing of the transfer window looming closer still, LK could make a strong case that an extension (other than for a very limited time) beyond 9 Sept would indeed run the risk of material damage to CAFC, of which Judge Pearce was mindful in his original denial of the injunction.