PM has agreed to sell its shares in ESI to LD, he says. Elliott sole shareholder in LD. Says he has sufficient means up to £12. Parties in dispute as to whether SPA is extant. PM says it has been terminated or is incapable of performance.
LJ Lewison says SPA provides that the buyer shall deliver to the seller written confirmation that the EFL does not consider any relevant person to be subject to a disqualifying condition and is satisfied by future financial provisions.
Principal contention is whether SPA is conditional or whether as EFL decided it was unconditional. EFL decided that by paying money in Elliott acted as a relevant person and required the club to remove him as such.
The thing that's worrying me is that Pearce started all positive for LD, and then denied the injunction, and now Lewison is starting positive for PM...
The thing that's worrying me is that Pearce started all positive for LD, and then denied the injunction, and now Lewison is starting positive for PM...
Yeah this fact isnt lost on me either... Been thinking the same
LJ Lewison: where there is doubt as to the adequacy of remedy of damages that balance of convenience arises. Course should take whatever course seems like to take the least irremediable prejudice.
The thing that's worrying me is that Pearce started all positive for LD, and then denied the injunction, and now Lewison is starting positive for PM...
Yeah this fact isnt lost on me either... Been thinking the same
but if they always did it this way that would be odd
Comments
I wish.
Just sounds better than FFS.
but if they always did it this way that would be odd