Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ESI 1 v ESI 2 - Initial Hearing 01-02/09/2020, Court of Appeal 17/09/2020 (p127)
Comments
-
LJ Lewison says that first risk MM described is of club not being able to start season. Second is points deduction. LK says they are continuing risks, not gone just because the season has started and the EFL has not imposed sanctions yet.1
-
There will be a section in the "authorities bundle" that contains any case law they feel is relevant and might use in court.Chunes said: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.0 -
And a reminder that this case isn't Lex vs Charlton, it's Lex vs Panorama (i.e. ESI) who created this whole mess in the first placeKentishAddick said:I get the feeling the U.K legal system isn't a big fan of Marian Mihail.2 -
Don't get this part, though?"LJ Males doesn't understand how Mihail's evidence could have been compiled before the claim became clear."0 -
LJ Lewison explores LD losing at trial became binding contract not extant. In that case PE not a relevant person at any point, so what sanction could EFL impose from anything to do with LD. Transfer embargo not about PE.0
-
Come on Captain Kreamer , last minute winner coming up , just like Jacko against QPR !4
-
Sponsored links:
-
2-2. Back in the game.Covered End said:0 -
Why does LK not show that Elliottttttt is the risk?1
-
Covered End said:
And we all know how slow the EFL can be coming to a decision. Elliott's OADT appeal and the Sheffield Wedneday issue come to mind immediately
0 -
Kreamer: It’s very clear Panorama intends to sell its shares. #cafc1
-
This is the problem of appealing (and allowing passage of time) of a snapshot decision like should on the balance of convenience (today) an injunction be given. The court should not be viewing risk and detriment with the benefit of 2 weeks and the start of the season - it should be viewing risk and detriment as at the time Judge Pearce made his decision. He can't be expected to have predicted the future, only to make a reasonable assessment of what he considered to be likely to happen.Covered End said:13 -
Still hoping a Twet from TS pops up with him in a Charlton top5
-
“ LJ Lewison explores LD losing at trial became binding contract not extant. In that case PE not a relevant person at any point, so what sanction could EFL impose from anything to do with LD. Transfer embargo not about PE.”Right, but all the while an injunction stands, ESI can’t sell and therefore can’t alleviate the embargo. If PE took over tomorrow, the injunction would lift, fine. But he can’t: he hasn’t paid his pound and has been denied on the OADT!1
-
LK says what will have been lost by PM is time and various knock-on effects on the club. Clear that ESI intends to sell. Part of reason is in Gallen's statement. PM can't satisfy EFL about source and sufficiency. LD must satisfy EFL in advance of taking over.0
-
Sponsored links:
-
Big difference is Chaisty refers to us as a third party and Kreamer refers to us as the heart of the case.9
-
Embargo is going forward if PE takes over & doesn't satisfy the EFL's tests.i_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Lewison explores LD losing at trial became binding contract not extant. In that case PE not a relevant person at any point, so what sanction could EFL impose from anything to do with LD. Transfer embargo not about PE.2 -
The club needs to be run by somebody who can pass the tests, if that's not PE then who does LD suggest it will be? LD can't say we're buying the club and the EFL can't impose further sanctions because PE won't be the one running it. They have to have somebody running it who has passed the tests. The transfer embargo is a result of nobody who has passed the tests being in charge of the club. If LD gets it's injunction then that prevents anybody who has passed the tests from running the club, therefore inviting further sanctions the longer the club remains in it's current state.i_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Lewison explores LD losing at trial became binding contract not extant. In that case PE not a relevant person at any point, so what sanction could EFL impose from anything to do with LD. Transfer embargo not about PE.1 -
Bet Chaisty will bring up that she's a fan again so Conflict of Interest... Surprised he hasnt done that alreadystoneroses19 said:Big difference is Chaisty refers to us as a third party and Kreamer refers to us as the heart of the case.0 -
LK: Gallen is correct that LD haven't been able to satisfy the EFL on source on sufficiency, contrary to Chaisty. Clear that PM will never do it, and as long as that continues these effects go on. Necessarily connected to financial situation.3
-
LJ Lewison asking what sanctions could be imposed that would be the fault of Lex Dominus. Says embargo has “nothing to do with LD”
I really don't get her point. LD weren't the initial cause, no, but are responsible for the continuation, and the injunction would grant that the embargo continues on further!0
This discussion has been closed.
