If we are sold in the meantime then what would be the point of an appeal?
That's what's confusing me
They want an appeal to get yesterday's decision overturned, so they get their injunction to prevent a sale.
if Pearce doesn't grant leave to appeal then they can appeal directly to the Court of Appeal but it will be too late to stop a sale to TS or another party. This is all about getting their 'fair' share of whatever ESI sell to TNS for.
Correct. The danger is if Pearce does grant an appeal, which is heard before a sale can go through.
just means if an appeal was to be heard in two weeks the sale would need to go through by then. I don't think he'll grant it but leave it to them to go to the Court of Appeal which means it will take even longer.
Correct, but most people didn't appear to understand that there was a danger that the judge could grant an appeal which would be heard before a sale and possibly then preventing the sale.
The court of appeal option (a different appeal) was laways going to be further down the line and less of a concern.
Anyway the judge has declined the appeal, so we now need TS to get the sale done, as there appears to be no legal reason to prevent it.
Mihail's statement on Football League World's website: “I imagine many of you will have seen pictures of Thomas Sandgaard at yesterday’s game and while I am sure you will appreciate we can’t go into detail, we can say that conversations with prospective buyers are progressing positively. I’d like to thank the staff directly involved, who are working tirelessly to provide information to support these ongoing discussions. There is still work to be done but yesterday’s decision allows us to focus on moving the club forward and putting these difficult times behind us.”
I was struggling yesterday with why damages were not considered to be adequate remedy. Both ESI 1 & 2 are clearly only in it for (Sandgaard's) money. So letting ESI 1 sell to TS and the crooks fight each other for the proceeds afterwards would seem an entirely reasonable course of action.
Mihail's statement on Football League World's website: “I imagine many of you will have seen pictures of Thomas Sandgaard at yesterday’s game and while I am sure you will appreciate we can’t go into detail, we can say that conversations with prospective buyers are progressing positively. I’d like to thank the staff directly involved, who are working tirelessly to provide information to support these ongoing discussions. There is still work to be done but yesterday’s decision allows us to focus on moving the club forward and putting these difficult times behind us.”
……...nothing (for once) from him to trip us up, I reckon re imminent timescales
I was struggling yesterday with why damages were not considered to be adequate remedy. Both ESI 1 & 2 are clearly only in it for (Sandgaard's) money. So letting ESI 1 sell to TS and the crooks fight each other for the proceeds afterwards would seem an entirely reasonable course of action.
I guess they would argue (a) they have no control over the sale price (b) Panorama could just be wound up immediately after the deal
Kreamer raising the fact that Chaisty's point of law (in which he is seeking a short-term injunction) relates to a Family Court - she is saying it is in relation to a change of situation to children.
Kreamer says Chaisty is seeking to rely on a decision in the family court which is about an arrangement for a child. Is about welfare of the child and not an appropriate precedent.
Comments
The court of appeal option (a different appeal) was laways going to be further down the line and less of a concern.
Anyway the judge has declined the appeal, so we now need TS to get the sale done, as there appears to be no legal reason to prevent it.
So letting ESI 1 sell to TS and the crooks fight each other for the proceeds afterwards would seem an entirely reasonable course of action.
Not close, pure speculation
Judge Pearce: Yes. Leeds are after Reading's Michael Olise.
Kreamer says Chaisty is seeking to rely on a decision in the family court which is about an arrangement for a child. Is about welfare of the child and not an appropriate precedent.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ybW48rKBME">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ</a>