Chaisty says there’s no evidence that the club is under any sanctions due to the actions of his client. The embargoes were in place well before my client “came onto the scene”.
#cafc
Au contraire Mr Chastity neither has your client managed to get the sanction lifted 😈.
Sounds like they are fighting over who should switch off the life support, not who should save the patient.
Lord Justice Males asking what evidence we have that Lex Dominus has any assets.
Chaisty doesn’t fully answer, but says Elliott is prepared to put in a personal guarantee.
#cafc
Annoyingly this is true (although false too) as it was Southall fault we ended up in an embargo situation but Elliott stepped in and didn’t help the embargo be lifted with his failed OADT.
Lord Justice Males asking what evidence we have that Lex Dominus has any assets.
Chaisty doesn’t fully answer, but says Elliott is prepared to put in a personal guarantee.
#cafc
Chaisty says difficult to understand. LD dependent on the support of Elliott. Chaisty says that Heller offered £100k for the shares of ESI at one point. Elliott offered guarantee of £50k, presumably against damages.
Recommend not feeling high neither low as the remarks are made, whether by each other’s counsel or either LJ. Much yet to hear on and ultimately the LJs will not reach a conclusion until they have heard everything and considered the case in the round. We all knew MM did not give a good account in the first hearing, so do not be surprised that Chaisty tries to fully exploit that - for example.
Lord Justice Males asking what evidence we have that Lex Dominus has any assets.
Chaisty doesn’t fully answer, but says Elliott is prepared to put in a personal guarantee.
#cafc
If a sale isn't imminent then why do you need an injunction!!!!
It really should be as simple as that, an injunction is to stop something happening, you can't get an injunction to stop something you say isn't happening anyway, surely?
Chaisty: "We did say grant the injunction and give liberty to apply to vary if there is a change of circumstances in future that Panorama put to the court."
LJ Lewison says not down to Elliott, underlying documents show that ESI has failed to satisfy source and sufficiency of funds. LD hasn't reached that stage with the EFL.
Probably because they fell at the first hurdle of passing the fit & proper test.
Chaisty: wholly wrong on that basis to grant no injunction at all, when he saw the problem with damages. No protection for LD in Judge Pearce's decision.
It seems like Chaisty is heavily reliant on the fact there’s a lack of physical evidence within PM’s court documents. We know there is evidence to disprove everything he’s saying, am I to presume these documents are not included due to NDA with TS?
Comments
30 mins? Christ it feels like hours
It really should be as simple as that, an injunction is to stop something happening, you can't get an injunction to stop something you say isn't happening anyway, surely?
Its almost like they're trying to deliberately drag it out
and vice-versa, of course!