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
-
Both sides are shockingly poor TBFForeverAddickted said:Surely its not up to PM though to provide much more evidence
The issue is LD proving that the decision Judge Pearce made was wrong and they've not exactly provided much further evidence themselves3 -
Agreed - they've had a long time to get their argument together and it's a shambles. Not saying its Lauren's fault, she's clearly got one, if not two, hands tied.cafcfan1990 said:PM have been absolute shite. No disrespect to Lauren intended but I expected more, particularly around the sale to TS. However, I've seen nothing from LD that suggests the decision from Judge Pearce should be overturned.2 -
I'm calm
IMO LD have shown nothing that's good enough to get JP decision overturned0 -
Are they giving a ruling today?0
-
i_b_b_o_r_g said:LK quoting "authorities" around levels of risk. Appellant court should only interfere between two imperfect solutions when judge has exceeded generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible.
That's the sexiest bit of legalise. I wonder if I can have Lauren's babies?
2 -
What's the score?
0 -
But a lot of this evidence would have been relevant for the Panorama case that the football club would be badly affected by an injunctionForeverAddickted said:Surely its not up to PM though to provide much more evidence
The issue is LD proving that the decision Judge Pearce made was wrong and they've not exactly provided much further evidence themselves1 - Sponsored links:
-
LK: Judge Pearce was "far from convinced" that summary judgement would likely be in favour of LD. Accepted that a speedy trial was required but did give weight to issues being considered in refusing injunction.0
-
Agreed, but could have done with more evidence as to the future of the club. Especially because there was a "real danger to the club not starting the season" which was proved wrong last weekend. So MM and/or PM could have come up with a bit more as to why the future of the club is at risk if this sale doesn't go throough.ForeverAddickted said:Surely its not up to PM though to provide much more evidence
The issue is LD proving that the decision Judge Pearce made was wrong and they've not exactly provided much further evidence themselves3 -
Clutching at straws, but any chance TS has two deals planned and is just waiting to see the outcome of today to decide which to go for? A deal with ESI 1 if there is no injunction, and another deal with Roland that cuts everyone out if there is an injunction in place?2
-
LK is 100% right there. It was and is pure conjecture on LD's part that they won't be able to get damages from PM. They may be right, but they have offered no evidence of any kind other than PM has no assets, which is also true of LD, so if they argue they won't be able to get damages from PM they are equally arguing that PM won't be able to get any damages from LD should the case go the other way.Covered End said:3 -
LK: Chaisty said undue consideration was given to Charlton Athletic, but LK argues that court may have regard to other connected parties. Chaisty argues that #cafc is at heart of dispute but then says it should not be given such weight, she says.0
-
Still got to wait for the EFL to pass him in the ODAT though...GNelson said:Clutching at straws, but any chance TS has two deals planned and is just waiting to see the outcome of today to decide which to go for? A deal with ESI 1 if there is no injunction, and another deal with Roland that cuts everyone out if there is an injunction in place?0 - Sponsored links:
-
As I said before - 2 old farts who don't live in the real world.stoneroses19 said:I’m confused why the judge is saying this is the first he’s heard of any liabilities due to the club purchase. Surely he realises the club and its full content isn’t actually only worth a pound.0 -
I still see this as 0-0.jacob_CAFC said:What's the score?0 -
Remember, the judges arnt judging this case just on the information provided.
But on the basis that Judge Pearce really screwed up.
Based on all Information provided, I can not see how these judges can over rule that decision1 -
LK: Nothing in Judge Pearce's ruling goes outside deciding between two imperfect outcomes. Not the role of the Court of Appeal to revisit that. LK finishes.1
-
Which is good enough, PM are 1-0 up from the first legken_shabby said:
I still see this as 0-0.jacob_CAFC said:What's the score?3 -
Weird situation: I don't think that LD have shown anything that suggests the decision was wrong initially; they very much seem to have restated the same case and hoped for a different outcome. Equally I don't think PM have done themselves any favours: they seem to be lacking crucial evidence that they ought to have. For example, just waving off that it isn't clear that PE has been paying the wages for the past few months - surely they know? Either he has been sending the club a cheque or he hasn't?
5 -
Exactly, we don't need to win this. We just need LD to not be able to "score" and overturn the decision.randy andy said:
Which is good enough, PM are 1-0 up from the first legken_shabby said:
I still see this as 0-0.jacob_CAFC said:What's the score?0 -
Chaisty: says considerable reliance placed by LK on Gallen's evidence. Concerned about that if appeal is rejected. Gallen has sought to explain what Mihail was saying. PM shouldn't be allowed to rely on evidence that should have been before court below.0
This discussion has been closed.
