Sanctions facing #cafc are of the most serious nature, says Kreamer. Judge interjects that Mihail is the only one giving evidence on this and he is not sure what weight to give his evidence, given he was wrong in his evidence about appeal.
Just because you got 1 thing wrong should mean the rest of what you say is wrong.
Do you mean to say "shouldnt mean the rest of what you say is wrong"?
Back to Farnell now. He gave evidence on July 13th that Panorama owned the shares, legally and beneficially. As a lawyer Farnell might be expected to say if they were being held on trust for Lex Dominus, but he didn’t. Explicitly said that the Lex deal had not been concluded.
The judge has stepped in to raise the concern of what "weight" he can place on Mihail's evidence.
Kreamer had already said MM apologised for "an error" on his views on how the OADT system works. Says it has been corrected and rest of his evidence should be taken "at face value".
Don't like the sound of this. If harm can't be proven then surely the easy option is to grant the injunction and leave somebody else to sort out the mess later?
EFL sanctions are clearly of a serious nature. You don't need any evidence from MM on that, we are currently under EFL sanctions and they are preventing us from creating a competitive squad for the upcoming season. Unless sanctions are lifted there is a risk (I'll leave it to others to quantify) of relegation. It is also clear with need for MM evidence that should it be found that Elliott owns or is in any way involved with us having failed the OADT then we will be subject to further sanctions which are more severe than the current sanctions we are under. What MM has to say on the matter is immaterial to ongoing events.
The fact that the pound was never "paid" is not relevant. The pound represents a consideration. Not paying the pound doesn't void the contract, it merely opens up a separate action in debt. In other words, Elliot not paying the pound simply means he owes a pound.
Further: DICHAND v HYDRAREDOX TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED
What if there's a contractual condition that it has to be paid within say 14 days?
Sanctions facing #cafc are of the most serious nature, says Kreamer. Judge interjects that Mihail is the only one giving evidence on this and he is not sure what weight to give his evidence, given he was wrong in his evidence about appeal.
Just because you got 1 thing wrong should mean the rest of what you say is wrong.
Do you mean to say "shouldnt mean the rest of what you say is wrong"?
Sanctions facing #cafc are of the most serious nature, says Kreamer. Judge interjects that Mihail is the only one giving evidence on this and he is not sure what weight to give his evidence, given he was wrong in his evidence about appeal.
Just because you got 1 thing wrong should mean the rest of what you say is wrong.
Do you mean to say "shouldnt mean the rest of what you say is wrong"?
Seems to me
that, notwithstanding the hours of argument (and waffle) and the £££,£££s of
legal costs incurred, the verdict is likely to be precisely that predicted by
many here weeks ago.
Namely that:
1. the sale by Panorama to Lex Dom is indeed contingent on
the buyer (i.e. owner of LD - currently PE) passing the EFL's OADT
2. the buyer has the right, under that contract, for its
appeal against the EFL's initial rejection to be seen through to the completion.
Thus the injunction preventing Panorama from selling CAFC to
a third party will be granted and take effect until such time as the appeal
process is completed.
If the appeal is successful then ownership of CAFC will vest
with Lex Dom. If it isn't, it stays with Panorama.
Farnell also referred on July 13th to parties “seeking” to buy shares and that uncertainty could damage club. Cannot now say that his evidence then was made in a different context. Therefore no serious issue to be tried.
Comments
What if there's a contractual condition that it has to be paid within say 14 days?
...oh, never mind
Seems to me that, notwithstanding the hours of argument (and waffle) and the £££,£££s of legal costs incurred, the verdict is likely to be precisely that predicted by many here weeks ago.
Namely that:
1. the sale by Panorama to Lex Dom is indeed contingent on the buyer (i.e. owner of LD - currently PE) passing the EFL's OADT
2. the buyer has the right, under that contract, for its appeal against the EFL's initial rejection to be seen through to the completion.
Thus the injunction preventing Panorama from selling CAFC to a third party will be granted and take effect until such time as the appeal process is completed.
If the appeal is successful then ownership of CAFC will vest with Lex Dom. If it isn't, it stays with Panorama.
Ball in EFL's court.
(If the judge hasnt made his decision)
With a bit of luck he'll get one referring to the response in Arkell vs Pressdram (1971)
Gott be an open and shut case now me lud