LJ Lewison says Mihail sets out hypothesis that injunction is granted and LD succeed at trial then ties consequences to that scenario. So to determine whether damages are an adequate for Panorama is that injunction is grated by LD lose at trial.
No evidence as to what contract, price or date of completion or identity of third party, says Chaisty. Extremely important if respondent says irremediable damage if injunction granted. No evidence third party would disappear either.
It’s so ducking annoying. The damage done is to the team - the fact that an injunction prevents transfers - which has a direct impact on value and long term prospects of club - how can this not be seen? An injunction damages the club and therefore the saleability of the club, not least to mention the potential damage administration, exclusion etc would deal to the community. Grr!
That’s what Lauren put across last time and Pearce agreed.
Surely PM/CAFC could put evidence in showing how perilous our finances our and to show TS is close to buying us but wants a deal soon or he believes we'll have to enter administration
LJ Lewison says that Judge Pearce's ruling may be based on the wrong hypothesis. Chaisty says that MM assumed that Elliott's disqualification is final ruling, which is false.
So from what I'm reading... Chaisty is saying that no evidence has been provided by PM of a takeover or negotiations etc.
BUT he got the seven day injunction whilst they went to appeal because he provided evidence of there being an imminent takeover?
I know. It's bonkers, isn't it??!! He has changed his stance twice now and yet LD are getting their way because of it. Surely, the judges and Laura C are not missing that point? If he is arguing there is no evidence of imminent takeover, surely that removes the need for the temporary injunction and we are home and free? I bet it doesn't go down that way. It's Charlton, after all!
They’re not making any new arguments, so can’t see them succeeding at appeal. The point of an appeal is to overturn a previous judgement based on new evidence. Doesn’t seem to be any.
Doomsday scenario disproved by the fact that the club has started the season, says Chaisty. Court left with speculation about potential consequences but with no evidence to form a view as to likelihood.
If the EFL had failed Elliott again then it would of taken this argument away.
Elliott pursuing right of appeal with arbitration panel, says Chaisty. EFL disqualification based on misleading evidence provided by Elliott about the SPA. MM's evidence has no foundation because there is an appeal process.
But we've been told that's immaterial. The arguement is about selling ESI, not what is inside it.
Very frustrating because both sides know what it means to delay things further - no money to pay wages, transfer embargo etc etc. But the nuance will be lost on the two old farts stiting there.
Very grateful to those relaying updates on here, thanks
Indeed, thanks to those for sharing.
Please can I ask though, any twitter links can we post just a screenshot or the text from the tweet itself?
Twitter is blocked at work and it's difficult going back to my phone to check the tweet. And it is even more difficult with little signal in the office.
LJ Lewison says that Judge Pearce's ruling may be based on the wrong hypothesis. Chaisty says that MM assumed that Elliott's disqualification is final ruling, which is false.
Don’t like this LJ seemingly agreeing with Chaisty
Elliott pursuing right of appeal with arbitration panel, says Chaisty. EFL disqualification based on misleading evidence provided by Elliott about the SPA. MM's evidence has no foundation because there is an appeal process.
Efl screw us with their tardiness to resolve PE appeal ffs
So, let's get this straight. This is an appeal to overturn Judge Pearce's ruling that an injunction to stop ESI selling its shares to anyone but Paul Elliott is wrong.
The fact that an injunction is a mechanism to stop something happening, and seeing as the original injunction hearing was 16 days ago, makes ruling against an injunction a farce.
Me - "stop - you can't sell that its mine" Judge "no it's not - sale can proceed" Me - " I'll appeal then" Judge " you want to appeal, oh that's a different matter then. Stop the sale"
So, you have a Judge saying you cant stop the sale but appeal that decision & the sale is stopped.
Bonkers. The law is indeed an ass & I'm a banana.
Not quite right. It is a Hearing to decide if there should be an injunction preventing the sale of EIS Ltd until the Hearing in November. The Hearing in November will decide if Elliott has the exclusive right to buy.
My point was an injunction is sought to stop (or delay) something happening. Judge Pearce SIXTEEN days ago ruled against an injunction........but yet a sale hasn't yet happened because an appeal was granted. Therefore an injunction of sorts has already happened.
As I said, the law is an ass.
The injunction wasn't prevented because LD decided that they woul take the case to a higher court as a result ofJudge Pearce refusing the right to appeal in his court. That is and always has been the legal process and sometimes it gets to sort out wrongs, sometimes just delays the inevitable. The right to appeal to a higher court has always been a fundamental of the legal system and rightly so.
LJ Lewison says that Judge Pearce's ruling may be based on the wrong hypothesis. Chaisty says that MM assumed that Elliott's disqualification is final ruling, which is false.
Don’t like this LJ seemingly agreeing with Chaisty
Patience!!... On the first day it was a tennis match the way the judge went back and forth
They’re not making any new arguments, so can’t see them succeeding at appeal. The point of an appeal is to overturn a previous judgement based on new evidence. Doesn’t seem to be any.
No the point of an appeal is that the 1st judge made the wrong judgment on the evidence available. If its new evidence it would go back as a new injunction application.
Comments
I know. It's bonkers, isn't it??!! He has changed his stance twice now and yet LD are getting their way because of it. Surely, the judges and Laura C are not missing that point? If he is arguing there is no evidence of imminent takeover, surely that removes the need for the temporary injunction and we are home and free? I bet it doesn't go down that way. It's Charlton, after all!
Very frustrating because both sides know what it means to delay things further - no money to pay wages, transfer embargo etc etc. But the nuance will be lost on the two old farts stiting there.
Indeed, thanks to those for sharing.
Please can I ask though, any twitter links can we post just a screenshot or the text from the tweet itself?
Twitter is blocked at work and it's difficult going back to my phone to check the tweet. And it is even more difficult with little signal in the office.
Thanks again to those that are sharing.