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)

18586889091175

Comments

  • Chaisty saying Panorama is a shell company and will have no interest in the case. But he's still asking for a speedy trial in case their pessimism is misplaced or some form of relief from the court of appeal which still makes a trial effective.
  • edited September 2020
  • Does this mean they club can't be sold until an appeal is heard?
  • This is looking a bit more interesting than I had thought.

    Attacking fans for abuse (with some justification), attacking LK, wants an appeal and fast trial. Suddenly the prospect of a sale is imminent according to Chaisty following media reports. Yesterday he said that was all just gossip. 
  • Someone just seemed to unmute their mic and let out a cackle while Chaisty was talking. 
  • Chaisty said in light of press releases last night there is no likelihood of a sale not taking place before November. He says the trial in November will be a "non-event" - the shares will be sold and Panorama will have "disappeared into the ether'.
    Surely this is him bringing his own evidence? 

    I thought LK was stopped from doing this yesterday?
    I suspect it's come into the public demain over night.  So is relevant to an appeal? 
  • edited September 2020
    For a solicitor, Chaisty states an awful lot of conjuncture trying to dress it as factual. Easy to take sides in this case but I think he certainly needs a lot more substance if he were to impress me. Obvious mind games at the start in trying to scare Kreamer a little.
  • Chunes said:
    Does this mean they club can't be sold until an appeal is heard?
    Nope sounds like the Judge is saying that a appeal wont be allowed as looks likely the club will be sold before November
  • Sponsored links:


  • Well thats no surprise, Elliott said they'd be appealing the hell out of any decision that wasnt in their favour
    Hopefully heard in November, he seemed happy with that yesterday.

    Was he not busy for several weeks!
  • dickad1 said:
    This is looking a bit more interesting than I had thought.

    Attacking fans for abuse (with some justification), attacking LK, wants an appeal and fast trial. Suddenly the prospect of a sale is imminent according to Chaisty following media reports. Yesterday he said that was all just gossip. 
    1. I don't understand how he's able to bring new evidence into this.

    2. This was the reason the injunction was refused
  • Chunes said:
    Does this mean they club can't be sold until an appeal is heard?
    Nope sounds like the Judge is saying that a appeal wont be allowed as looks likely the club will be sold before November
    They don't like it up um !
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    Chaisty said in light of press releases last night there is no likelihood of a sale not taking place before November. He says the trial in November will be a "non-event" - the shares will be sold and Panorama will have "disappeared into the ether'.
    Surely this is him bringing his own evidence? 

    I thought LK was stopped from doing this yesterday?
    I suspect it's come into the public demain over night.  So is relevant to an appeal? 
    LK was bringing stuff up that was in the public doman yesterday and Chaisty made a fuss about it and she had to stop
  • Chaisty saying the trial will take 4-5 days. - Judge Pearce now bringing up the subject of transferring the case to London.

    Kreamer wants "speedy resolution" but takes exception to Chaisty saying about Panorama disappearing. Doesn't want that factored into judge's thinking.

  • F**k knows what they're on about now tbh
  • edited June 16
    Just re-posting from the other thread. @Rob7Lee has said that "John Burke" was added, early on to the list of attendees, presumably by Elliott's crew. Did anyone else notice this? If so, did they see the person on screen? We are very anxious to ID him.
    Didn't see his face but if Tom from Eltham is reading I'd happily go to Court to say it was him who turned on his mic and shouted "That's because you're a c*** Farnell".
  • The judge isn't an idiot. The imminent sale isn't going to effect things, purely on the basis it was the main reason the injunction wasn't granted yesterday. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • There are probably different rules of evidence between yesterday and today tbf
  • There is no issue in being a fan of a football club and also representing it - she stepped down from CAST to sever any link whilst she acted on the case - end of
    No different to representing yourself IMHO
  • Chunes said:
    There are probably different rules of evidence between yesterday and today tbf
    You're probably right. Just seems odd. Hopefully this new evidence actually goes in our favour.
  • What about the damages
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    Chaisty said in light of press releases last night there is no likelihood of a sale not taking place before November. He says the trial in November will be a "non-event" - the shares will be sold and Panorama will have "disappeared into the ether'.
    Surely this is him bringing his own evidence? 

    I thought LK was stopped from doing this yesterday?
    I suspect it's come into the public demain over night.  So is relevant to an appeal? 
    LK was bringing stuff up that was in the public doman yesterday and Chaisty made a fuss about it and she had to stop
    You would argue that that could have been submitted as part of the evidence, but as it wasn't tough. 

    You can't include something that had not happened yet as evidence.  But it could influence an appeal. 
  • edited September 2020
    Kreamer wants trial transferred to London. Says suggestion it doesn’t matter as hearing is remote not an adequate reason for case to commence in Manchester. Respondent in London so proceedings should have been issued there. Should be transferred.

    Kreamer applying for transfer of the case to the High Court in London.
  • edited September 2020
    Kreamer wants trial transferred to London. Says suggestion it doesn’t matter as hearing is remote not an adequate reason for case to commence in Manchester. Respondent in London so proceedings should have been issued there. Should be transferred.

    Kreamer applying for transfer of the case to the High Court in London.
    Is this our go at stringing this out
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!