The fact that PE dodnt provide evidence for money put into the club is telling and LK sone well to assert that. If they are gonna dig out PM for their lacklustre evidence then it must go both ways
LJ Lewison says loss would be calculated on diminution of the value shares rather than lost income to the club. Notes that people don't always buy football clubs to make money.
is that good?
ive absolutely no idea what this all means yet im avidly following
LK says the fact that PE puts forward £50k doesn't give her client any comfort that he has the money to cover its damages and even if he was found in contempt that wouldn't assist PM.
LK: says very clear that judge weighed very carefully the risk to the interests of PM/CAFC as put forward by MM. Effectively court was dealing with matters that are at the discretion of EFL, necessarily potential scenarios.
Can't see much evidence of goals being scored by either side. Most of Chaisty's evidence seems literally to be speculation and clearly prolonging the ownership of someone who hasn'ts paid for it, and whose cash injection of 500 grand it now turns out has no provenance, While Kreamer has made some worthy attacks but to me hasn'ts actually scored yet.
As an aside, why whould her being a Charlton fan be important, Are we so childish as to believe that Chaisty is being paid by LD, but would happily swap sides if he felt his client was wrong and causing damage, Has that ever happened in a court of law?
LJ Lewison says loss would be calculated on diminution of the value shares rather than lost income to the club. Notes that people don't always buy football clubs to make money.
is that good?
ive absolutely no idea what this all means yet im avidly following
LK: Nothing in appellant's case on appeal provides evidence that judge was wrong to say that damages would not be adequate remedy for PM if an injunction was wrongly granted.
Kreamer now speaking about the quality of MM’s evidence.
Says Judge Pearce already said he was taking MM’s evidence with a “pinch of salt”
Says this shows Judge Pearce weighed the value of MM’s evidence alongside other submissions.
An interesting argument, that MM's evidence had already been declared dodgy by Pearce, when he found in Panorama's favour, and thus shouldn't be a factor now!
LJ Lewison says loss would be calculated on diminution of the value shares rather than lost income to the club. Notes that people don't always buy football clubs to make money.
is that good?
ive absolutely no idea what this all means yet im avidly following
Comments
Nothing new here
As an aside, why whould her being a Charlton fan be important, Are we so childish as to believe that Chaisty is being paid by LD, but would happily swap sides if he felt his client was wrong and causing damage, Has that ever happened in a court of law?
Anybody, whats the score please ?
An interesting argument, that MM's evidence had already been declared dodgy by Pearce, when he found in Panorama's favour, and thus shouldn't be a factor now!
He'll be getting a week off mod duties.