ESI 1 v ESI 2 - Initial Hearing 01-02/09/2020, Court of Appeal 17/09/2020 (p127)

Redrobo

LargeAddick said:

Covered_End_Lad said:

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. 

Agreed, I also think the warning on giving leave to extend the 7day injunction being something he would advise either party against, was a shot across the bows not to be tardy in submitting documents - and aimed more at our side deliberately seeing out extra time.

Yorkshireaddick

This will be so familiar to anyone involved in the back to the Valley campaign I guess. ‘We’re going back to the Valley! No we’re not - the Council planners are on strike’ But it happened in the end and perhaps it was all the sweeter for the adversity that preceded it...

SporadicAddick

Re. the COA, ESI v ESI2 ref CF and QC Chaisty inter alia PE, MM per pro CAFC with regards to PV, AB and TS and EFL - is that possible does anyone know?

Redrobo

SporadicAddick said:

Re. the COA, ESI v ESI2 ref CF and QC Chaisty inter alia PE, MM per pro CAFC with regards to PV, AB and TS and EFL - is that possible does anyone know?

Not only possible, highly likely.

SporadicAddick

Redrobo said:

SporadicAddick said:

Re. the COA, ESI v ESI2 ref CF and QC Chaisty inter alia PE, MM per pro CAFC with regards to PV, AB and TS and EFL - is that possible does anyone know?

Not only possible, highly likely.

then we are doomed...might as well give up now.

i_b_b_o_r_g

SporadicAddick said:

Re. the COA, ESI v ESI2 ref CF and QC Chaisty inter alia PE, MM per pro CAFC with regards to PV, AB and TS and EFL - is that possible does anyone know?

Add to that MS likes a bit of SM

StigThundercock

Question for anybody sufficiently informed in the technicalities of EFL red tape around club ownership:
Why can’t ESI Ltd sell its assets* to COC Ltd? What has the sale of Nimer’s and mouthall‘s shares in ESI got to do with anything?
So long as the next effective owner of CAFC (TS) passes OADT etc why would ESI have to remain involved? It was just a vehicle to acquire CAFC exactly the same as COC Ltd is now

* ESI’s asset in question being all the shares in CAFC Ltd the entity that holds the football club

AFKABartram

It’s very clear the overnight break allowed Elliott’s team time to review and replan their approach. It’s also clear than in the initial ruling the judge played some weight on the importance’s of the club to its supporters and community.

what can we do as part of next replan?

is there a way the CoA can have laid before their eyes EVIDENCE of just how little the supporters want Elliott anywhere near their community asset and that the delaying blockage to proceeding with a willing, able and wanted buyer is putting the future of the club into serious jeopardy?

Chizz

Logged on this morning and saw this horrific sight.  I immediately suffered an attack of what I am henceforth calling the Ali-Wibbles.  It's a lot of catching up to do.  

AFKABartram

Hi Chizz,

Click on ‘Sign Out’

Love
The rest of the Forum

AFKABartram

Joke :-)

Chizz

AFKABartram said:

Hi Chizz,

Click on ‘Sign Out’

Love
The rest of the Forum

What?  And lose my only opportunity to reach a thousand? 

i_b_b_o_r_g

36

There you go Chizz, that'll take you over the 100, and don't say I don't do anything for you

SteveKielyCambridge

The idea was floated yesterday that any sale price could be placed into a court account and then be handed out as per the decision in the November trial - does anyone with more legal knowledge than me know if this is possible?

If so, that would give me huge reassurance. Even if the process did start to drag, it would give TS the perfect ultimatum: 'offer this remedy or no deal'. In which case, ESI1 would definitely do so, and I cannot see any reasonable way for ESI2 to argue against it.

Just a question of whether such an option exists?

LargeAddick

carly burn said:

SomervilleAddick said:

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?

surprised more of this wasn't made in court unless of course Lauren Kraemer has seen evidence of him putting money in. Could have made more of the fact that he hadn't even paid the £1.

Scratchingvalleycat

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?

Thank you for this. So the Court of Appeal has to consider this within 7 days, any longer and ESI 1 can sell. Even if they do consider within 7 days they are unlikely to grant the appeal, so  ESI 1 can sell. And even if they do grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal they might not extend the temporary injunction so ES1 1 could sell. So the odds are still in our favour. 

The court of appeal has to consider  the situation as to whether Lex Dominus has the right to overide the refusal by Judge Pearce of anappeal to his court. If they believe that the judge pearce was wrong in refusing the right to appeal they can choose to allow an appeal in the Court of Appeal.  Lex Dominus have been given seven days to convince an appeal court judge that they were right and the judge was wrong. If they win that then an appeal can be heard against the refusal of an injunction probably early next year. Given the basis of Judge pearces decision on the Balance of Convenience and the damage that the injunction  would achieve to a community I would hope that the appeal court judge would recognise that  Lex Dominus would have their day in court in late November and that would be before an appeal court hearing in any event and  suggest that this is an equitable remedy for them and that the original decision to refuse an injunction should stand.

Lets hope this is what happens. I also hope that no idiot from here tries to threaten or upset the legal system by  emailing or threatening the Lex Dominus QC or  Judge Pearce  as I have heard some suggestion of emails. That is called shooting yourself in the foot!

ISawLeaburnScore

SteveKielyCambridge said:

The idea was floated yesterday that any sale price could be placed into a court account and then be handed out as per the decision in the November trial - does anyone with more legal knowledge than me know if this is possible?

If so, that would give me huge reassurance. Even if the process did start to drag, it would give TS the perfect ultimatum: 'offer this remedy or no deal'. In which case, ESI1 would definitely do so, and I cannot see any reasonable way for ESI2 to argue against it.

Just a question of whether such an option exists?

It is a pragmatic solution and one that in reality gives Elliott potential access to what we know he wants - money.

However the problem is in his actions so far in applying for an injunction, then appealling and in seemingly wishing to claim for more permanent relief from trial, he is asking the court to give him specific performance as a remedy, ie. his claim is for the shares and to own the asset, not for its sale proceeds or compensation equal to the value of the shares.

He may well settle behind the scenes (I doubt it because at the moment he is still facing a very steep task to get an appeal before the Court of Appeal, so no incentive for him to be paid off and certainly not by TS), but there won't be a court sponsored solution like this based on what he is telling the court he wants. 

Scratchingvalleycat

LargeAddick said:

carly burn said:

SomervilleAddick said:

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?

surprised more of this wasn't made in court unless of course Lauren Kraemer has seen evidence of him putting money in. Could have made more of the fact that he hadn't even paid the £1.

There may well have been evidence of Elliott putting money in, but it doesn't mean to say it was his own money.

roseandcrown

ISawLeaburnScore said:

SteveKielyCambridge said:

The idea was floated yesterday that any sale price could be placed into a court account and then be handed out as per the decision in the November trial - does anyone with more legal knowledge than me know if this is possible?

If so, that would give me huge reassurance. Even if the process did start to drag, it would give TS the perfect ultimatum: 'offer this remedy or no deal'. In which case, ESI1 would definitely do so, and I cannot see any reasonable way for ESI2 to argue against it.

Just a question of whether such an option exists?

It is a pragmatic solution and one that in reality gives Elliott potential access to what we know he wants - money.

However the problem is in his actions so far in applying for an injunction, then appealling and in seemingly wishing to claim for more permanent relief from trial, he is asking the court to give him specific performance as a remedy, ie. his claim is for the shares and to own the asset, not for its sale proceeds or compensation equal to the value of the shares.

He may well settle behind the scenes (I doubt it because at the moment he is still facing a very steep task to get an appeal before the Court of Appeal, so no incentive for him to be paid off and certainly not by TS), but there won't be a court sponsored solution like this based on what he is telling the court he wants. 

@ISawLeaburnScoren your post are so helpful and clear for someone like me who does not really understand everything going on. 

PeanutsMolloy

Scratchingvalleycat 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?

Thank you for this. So the Court of Appeal has to consider this within 7 days, any longer and ESI 1 can sell. Even if they do consider within 7 days they are unlikely to grant the appeal, so  ESI 1 can sell. And even if they do grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal they might not extend the temporary injunction so ES1 1 could sell. So the odds are still in our favour. 

The court of appeal has to consider  the situation as to whether Lex Dominus has the right to overide the refusal by Judge Pearce of anappeal to his court. If they believe that the judge pearce was wrong in refusing the right to appeal they can choose to allow an appeal in the Court of Appeal.  Lex Dominus have been given seven days to convince an appeal court judge that they were right and the judge was wrong. If they win that then an appeal can be heard against the refusal of an injunction probably early next year. Given the basis of Judge pearces decision on the Balance of Convenience and the damage that the injunction  would achieve to a community I would hope that the appeal court judge would recognise that  Lex Dominus would have their day in court in late November and that would be before an appeal court hearing in any event and  suggest that this is an equitable remedy for them and that the original decision to refuse an injunction should stand.

Lets hope this is what happens. I also hope that no idiot from here tries to threaten or upset the legal system by  emailing or threatening the Lex Dominus QC or  Judge Pearce  as I have heard some suggestion of emails. That is called shooting yourself in the foot!

This.
We all understandably feel immense anger with all that's happened to CAFC courtesy of a cast of tossers and frustration that there's another (likely short) leg to the agony. BUT we're so close to bringing this excruciatingly painful episode to an end.
Please heed @Scratchingvalleycat 's advice.

cafcfan

Cafc43v3r said:

cafcfan said:

golfaddick said:

Cafc43v3r said:

LawrieAbrahams said:

golfaddick said:

So, if I have this right.

PE wanted to stop the sale of the club so wants an injunction.

Injunction denied.

PE appeals that decision. 

Appeal denied.

Appeals the appeal to the Court of Appeal. 

Granted.

Why the feck not just go straight to the top in the first place.

I hasten to add I don't think the Court of Appeal is the furthest they can go. Royal Court of Justice ??

The RCJ is the building where the Court of Appeal is based. 

House of Lords, it won't get in front of the ECJ in time......

Sorry that was in answer to @golfaddick

Yep, thought there was another strand to it all. Got an O level in Economic & Public Affairs 37 years ago but couldnt remember what was next after COA. 

Nope.  The Supreme Court replaced the House of Lords as the final arbiters in 2009.

What about the ECJ or its replacement? 

The ECJ can hear cases from the national courts through the 'preliminary ruling' system. This involves a national court referring a question on the interpretation of EU law to the ECJ. The ECJ decides the correct interpretation and sends the case back to the national court for a final decision. It is still up to the national court to decide issues of its own nation's laws.

SteveKielyCambridge

ISawLeaburnScore said:

It is a pragmatic solution and one that in reality gives Elliott potential access to what we know he wants - money.

However the problem is in his actions so far in applying for an injunction, then appealling and in seemingly wishing to claim for more permanent relief from trial, he is asking the court to give him specific performance as a remedy, ie. his claim is for the shares and to own the asset, not for its sale proceeds or compensation equal to the value of the shares.

He may well settle behind the scenes (I doubt it because at the moment he is still facing a very steep task to get an appeal before the Court of Appeal, so no incentive for him to be paid off and certainly not by TS), but there won't be a court sponsored solution like this based on what he is telling the court he wants. 

Thank you very much indeed, that is very helpful in trying to understand the situation.

MuttleyCAFC

What I am waiting to hear is that the deal has been agreed, could be signed today but is waiting to be signed with the right decision on Wednesday. As it stands, even without the delay, we are still waiting for that so a week delay may not really make much difference. 99.9% is not 100%. 

RedChaser

PeanutsMolloy said:

Scratchingvalleycat 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?

Thank you for this. So the Court of Appeal has to consider this within 7 days, any longer and ESI 1 can sell. Even if they do consider within 7 days they are unlikely to grant the appeal, so  ESI 1 can sell. And even if they do grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal they might not extend the temporary injunction so ES1 1 could sell. So the odds are still in our favour. 

The court of appeal has to consider  the situation as to whether Lex Dominus has the right to overide the refusal by Judge Pearce of anappeal to his court. If they believe that the judge pearce was wrong in refusing the right to appeal they can choose to allow an appeal in the Court of Appeal.  Lex Dominus have been given seven days to convince an appeal court judge that they were right and the judge was wrong. If they win that then an appeal can be heard against the refusal of an injunction probably early next year. Given the basis of Judge pearces decision on the Balance of Convenience and the damage that the injunction  would achieve to a community I would hope that the appeal court judge would recognise that  Lex Dominus would have their day in court in late November and that would be before an appeal court hearing in any event and  suggest that this is an equitable remedy for them and that the original decision to refuse an injunction should stand.

Lets hope this is what happens. I also hope that no idiot from here tries to threaten or upset the legal system by  emailing or threatening the Lex Dominus QC or  Judge Pearce  as I have heard some suggestion of emails. That is called shooting yourself in the foot!

This.
We all understandably feel immense anger with all that's happened to CAFC courtesy of a cast of tossers and frustration that there's another (likely short) leg to the agony. BUT we're so close to bringing this excruciatingly painful episode to an end.
Please heed @Scratchingvalleycat 's advice.

Quite agree but a lot of Charlton fans don't read this site, hopefully the other factions of the fan base heed this advice and can be communicated with. Whether via Twitter, Facebook, (neither of which  I partake in) or any other social media outlet such as CAST news and VOTV. Maybe @Weegie Addick  @PragueAddick and @Airman Brown could use their influence in this regard.

roseandcrown

MuttleyCAFC said:

What I am waiting to hear is that the deal has been agreed, could be signed today but is waiting to be signed with the right decision on Wednesday. As it stands, even without the delay, we are still waiting for that so a week delay may not really make much difference. 99.9% is not 100%. 

Would that not give the appeal/injunction more weight? 

cafcfan1990

roseandcrown said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

What I am waiting to hear is that the deal has been agreed, could be signed today but is waiting to be signed with the right decision on Wednesday. As it stands, even without the delay, we are still waiting for that so a week delay may not really make much difference. 99.9% is not 100%. 

Would that not give the appeal/injunction more weight? 

Let's not forget the judge rejected the injunction because there was a real risk of the club going out of existence. The takeover being 99.9% done doesn't change anything IMO. 

GlassHalfFull

I'm not so impressed with the judge
In fact I'm holding a grudge
He gave us the lead
Did old Judge Mis-Deed
But then came an absolute fudge

seth plum

Don't for one minute believe there is any equivalence between Charlton Athletic Football Club established for 115 years as our South East London institution, and Lex Domino a newly created empty shell company invented as a vehicle to squeeze money for questionable individuals.
If a Judge of any kind can't see which side most wants the best welfare for the main focus of the dispute then they should not be a Judge. Eliottttttt is game playing in order to get money isn't he? Like he wants the best for a football club remote from him and that motivates this litigation? Yeah right!
I know the technicalities of the law and legal process exist, but so does the basic notion about what is just.
It is the job of Judges to take into account what is right and wrong and balance that against those legal technicalities.
I believe our Lauren started out on Tuesday saying the action of Lex Dominican Republic was an abuse of process and she was absolutely right.
Come on Judges, cut through the fog and mete out what is clear natural Justice in this case.

MattF

So in a theoretical scenario where the leave to appeal is granted and an injunction until the end of November is put in place, if we become extinct as a result how would that reflect on the courts? Do they worry about perceived publicity in such cases?

Cafc43v3r

seth plum said:

Don't for one minute believe there is any equivalence between Charlton Athletic Football Club established for 115 years as our South East London institution, and Lex Domino a newly created empty shell company invented as a vehicle to squeeze money for questionable individuals.
If a Judge of any kind can't see which side most wants the best welfare for the main focus of the dispute then they should not be a Judge. Eliottttttt is game playing in order to get money isn't he? Like he wants the best for a football club remote from him and that motivates this litigation? Yeah right!
I know the technicalities of the law and legal process exist, but so does the basic notion about what is just.
It is the job of Judges to take into account what is right and wrong and balance that against those legal technicalities.
I believe our Lauren started out on Tuesday saying the action of Lex Dominican Republic was an abuse of process and she was absolutely right.
Come on Judges, cut through the fog and mete out what is clear natural Justice in this case.

In the final washing, the "best interests of the club" are totally irrelevant aren't they?

Please someone correct me if I am wrong and I hope I am.  The way see it is:

The judge refused the injunction because it potentially caused more harm to ESI than it did to LD. 

He ordered a full trial, which means the right, or not, for Elliott to buy the shares in ESI is in dispute. 

If ESI is sold before the trial it will basically a fight over money between Elliott and Nimer and have no impact on CAFC what so ever. 

If ESI isn't sold before the full trial and Elliott wins, there would be nothing, bar appeal, to stop him completing even if it ment expulsion from the league.  In the final hearing "the welfare of the club" is irrelevant.