So just what was LD's case for appeal then? - Other than repeating that Pearce was wrong in denying the injunction?
In a nutshell that Judge Pearce paid way too much weight to the damages an injuction would cause to the Club & Community. There is no real substance to be honest he's just a good attacking lawyer, I'd be astonished if the judges side with him unless they wholly feel Pearce had the wrong approach entirely.
Chaisty notes that Pearce said history of the club is something he can take into account. No precedent for taking into account third party interests, he says. Not a public interest case, just parties interested in the outcome.
That's the case in a nutshell.
Doesnt matter about what's owned by ESI (the club) just who owns it.
Chaisty is surely making an error here. CAFC aren't a third party, they are the primary and only asset of PM. If the judges are forced to ignore the club, then maybe they should ask Chaisty what else about PM it is they want to buy? If the club is such an irrelevance, then what else about PM is so desirable that an injunction against it's sale is necessary?
This all day long.
Feel I want to be one of the juniors in the team that you see handing notes to the bigwigs. Someone pass this on to Kreamer theres a good chap.
It means an appeal court cannot reopen the entire situation and start again - it is assessing the appropriateness and reasonableness of the original judgment, not the whole matter.
Yeah but the fact is that the 2 are inextricably linked, aren't they? One led to the other.
LK: evidence of Gallen has been filed and responded to by Elliott, so appellant has had that opportunity. LJ Lewison doesn't want to hear argument on that point.
Good line of argument from Lauren. Chaisty is just trying to push that he doesn't like the decision, Lauren is focusing on the fact these judges will need to say that Pearce acted outside of his remit as a judge, which is a pretty high bar. Especially as in my opinion it isn't true
Kreamer says the court of appeals shouldn’t consider the evidence fresh. Should be deciding whether the decision of the lower court was “clearly wrong”
#cafc
It means an appeal court cannot reopen the entire situation and start again - it is assessing the appropriateness and reasonableness of the original judgment, not the whole matter.
Yeah but the fact is that the 2 are inextricably linked, aren't they? One led to the other.
Yes and no. You can't start again at appeal. LD lost at first instance on one point. The question is was the decision on that point wrong. Given the point involves a high degree of discretion it is very hard to argue a judge invalidly exercised his discretion unless he clearly and wrongly over-prioritised the importance of some factors and under-prioritised others.
So according to the "authorities" (case law?) LK is quoting, the judges can't overrule Pearce unless they feel he overstepped his generous scope of discretion, even if they would have used that discretion differently.
Kreamer says the court of appeals shouldn’t consider the evidence fresh. Should be deciding whether the decision of the lower court was “clearly wrong”
#cafc
I just hope these are not 2 pompous elderly, male so-and-so's who won't appreciate being lectured to/at by a young, female barrister.
So according to the "authorities" (case law?) LK is quoting, the judges can't overrule Pearce unless they feel he overstepped his generous scope of discretion, even if they would have used that discretion differently.
Yep - authorities are other cases. This point is absolutely standard in the Court of Appeal and is very, very well-established.
Back to Mihail's evidence about consequences now. LK argues that is valid hypothesis. LJ Lewison says question of law is whether damages would be adequate if claim ultimately fails.
Comments
Feel I want to be one of the juniors in the team that you see handing notes to the bigwigs. Someone pass this on to Kreamer theres a good chap.
And in the red,
There's nothing in this game,
For 2 in a bed
Yeah but the fact is that the 2 are inextricably linked, aren't they? One led to the other.
LK is like a boxer using their jab as a range finder, waiting patiently to let go with a right hand over the top of a gradually lowering guard.
I just hope these are not 2 pompous elderly, male so-and-so's who won't appreciate being lectured to/at by a young, female barrister.
Ideally anyway