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
-
I doubt we will hear from MM again after that nonsense of a showing. Any of us could have done better. Even Elfs with his current predicament!1
-
The Law is ridiculous.
A few years back one of my daughters had a small claim as a result of a Party Wall dispute and one of the surveyors deciding to go ex parte (row out the other surveyor and make the decision himself).
Under the Party Wall legislation she could gamble £36 K (including VAT) none of us had or agree to set aside with both parties losing what they had spent.
She took the second action but decided to lodge a small claim for professional negligence against the surveyor that went ex parte.
Long story short the judge said everything about her case was correct and the surveyor had acted improperly but because the facility of the Party Wall Act existed she should have spent £36K she didn't have and claimed it back via the Party Wall legislation. Therefore the small claim was rejected because it was an 'improper channel.'
We are about to see another example of the Law's stupidity I fancy.
3 -
Hope Freshfields have their plan B in order6
-
Thanks mate. Although odd that MM wouldn't mention ESI are in a position to sell the club this week.Leeds_Addick said:
It wasn't in MM's evidence and she can't bring her own evidence.stoneroses19 said:Trying to keep up with this, but was LK not able to mention the imminent takeover by TS for a certain reason? Surely if the judge knew that we have a willing buyer who is genuine then an injunction makes no sense for the club.1 -
Think the judge whispered sustained....i_b_b_o_r_g said:Notice there weren't any objections to Farnell being called a c***8 -
Not sure if we have 'lost' as such.
I would hope that TS has planned for this contingency and with Freshfields I am sure he has.5 -
MM or Kreamer? How was the evidence that went forward in MMs name compiled and checked?carly burn said:Mihail f**** up big time.
Not really surprising when you look at the fact that he was appointed by a fraud.0 -
He done what he was paid to do.carly burn said:Mihail f**** up big time.
Not really surprising when you look at the fact that he was appointed by a fraud.
Don't trust this prick one bit2 -
No evidence of a deal to buy the club though?AddicksAddict said:
If you read back through this thread, LK took Chaisty to the cleaners. He waffled and waffled without providing any evidence, she was succinct and pointed out all the facts.ct_addick said:Sounds like Chaisty took LK to the cleaners.....it does warrant the question whether TS has submitted a written offer?0 - Sponsored links:
-
Listen, I'm sad I know but gave up on this thread and went to watch the EFL game.
Can understand the deep despair on here. But even if this doesn't go our way, there's still some hope. Our team of youngsters are playing well - Maynard-Brewer will be the next goalkeeper to come through and there's a lad called Barker (a Michael Morrison look alike) playing at centre half who has had a great game. Oztumer looks class and Davison will be a handful for all defenders
Provided someone keeps funding the club, these young lads look to have enough talent to at least make us competitive this season.
Keep the faith.13 -
I'm not sure when it was submitted.stoneroses19 said:
Thanks mate. Although odd that MM wouldn't mention ESI are in a position to sell the club this week.Leeds_Addick said:
It wasn't in MM's evidence and she can't bring her own evidence.stoneroses19 said:Trying to keep up with this, but was LK not able to mention the imminent takeover by TS for a certain reason? Surely if the judge knew that we have a willing buyer who is genuine then an injunction makes no sense for the club.
Has been mentioned that some kind of pre-trial took place on 19th Aug so might've had to submit evidence before that? Or maybe he couldn't reference TS due to NDA's or maybe he's just stupid.2 -
Hopefully, although many were confident that Elliott’s case was weak and in-fact this injunction request would never get as far as todays’s trial. Not only did it get to trial, he’s about to bloody win.Richard J said:Not sure if we have 'lost' as such.
I would hope that TS has planned for this contingency and with Freshfields I am sure he has.0 -
In what way? I'm no legal expert, and can only go from what has been said on here, but it hardly sounds like LK was out of her depth and clearly beaten.ct_addick said:Sounds like Chaisty took LK to the cleaners.....it does warrant the question whether TS has submitted a written offer?
Eveb if this outcome of this is not what is desired, I hardly feel like it's appropriate to effectly blame LK by saying she was taken to the cleaners where by the sounds of it she did as good as job as she probably could.5 -
We need to sell Phillips which will pay wages and open up a slot for a CB. Then we struggle on trying to be as best placed we can at the next window, by then we will hopefully have TS in charge. Or this gets sorted out of court.2
-
Judge slating CF
42 -
You think Kreamer didn't review the evidence before it was submitted? Serious question as i dont know but assume she would have.IdleHans said:AddicksAddict said:
If you read back through this thread, LK took Chaisty to the cleaners. He waffled and waffled without providing any evidence, she was succinct and pointed out all the facts.ct_addick said:Sounds like Chaisty took LK to the cleaners.....it does warrant the question whether TS has submitted a written offer?
Agreed, she was excellent. But MM had tied her laces together before the race1 -
I'm guessing Mihail is no longer invited to join the Sandgaard party (if it ever happens)?0
-
More for the SRA, I'd say
2 - Sponsored links:
-
What has/ hasn't Mihail done that has affected today please? (I've not picked up on it on the thread)0
-
Why didn’t Mihail just include the two NDA’s in the evidence? Clear sign of potential takeover.5
-
If we wanna drag the metaphor out properly: Problem is that esi 1 were playing for a draw and spent the game tactically fouling a timewasting
We just need to see if var judges the ball crossed the line1 -
Mihail works for a useless, greedy lying crook. If he was so good, he would do better. Showed today why he hasn't.1
-
Sounding more and more like the injunction is going to be granted0
-
Part 1 - Judge concludes the is a triable case.Part 2 - are damages adequate remedy?0
-
Think there's only about 2 people that actually know mate. The rest are just saying "MM fucked us today" with no idea whyRodneyCharltonTrotta said:What has/ hasn't Mihail done that has affected today please? (I've not picked up on it on the thread)8 -
I thought that there was no imminent sale. Not needed. 😉Leeds_Addick said:Sounding more and more like the injunction is going to be granted0 -
Doesnt confirm how far along they are thoValleyGary said:Why didn’t Mihail just include the two NDA’s in the evidence? Clear sign of potential takeover.0 -
He’s going to give the injunction0
This discussion has been closed.
