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
-
Permission to appeal refused.0
-
Wonder if being called draconian didnt help22
-
Perhaps describing the Judge's actions as draconian wasn't the nicest way to go about it13
-
Hahahahaha have that you mugs2
-
Judge doesn't feel the decision was irrational, and thus refuses an appeal.
TS, now is your chance!
0 -
1
-
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.Covered End said:
Correct. The danger is if Pearce does grant an appeal, which is heard before a sale can go through.LargeAddick said:
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.Covered End said:
They want an appeal to get yesterday's decision overturned, so they get their injunction to prevent a sale.Leeds_Addick said:If we are sold in the meantime then what would be the point of an appeal?
That's what's confusing me1 -
It is very unlikely for the judge to give permission to appeal his own decision - they are still at liberty to make an application to the Court of Appeal as they have indicated they will do.5
-
Chaisty might be chasing shadows too for his money if he loses as Lex Dominus will probably shutdown.2
-
i would love it if Kreamer sticks on a Charlton top to end it.8
- Sponsored links:
-
Looking forward to Lex vs Panorama in November. It'll be like watching Millwall vs Palace where you want both sides to lose27
-
Chaisty requests a "further restraint on the defendent for seven days" so his client can get in front of the Court of Appeals.
Chaisty now arguing for further period of restraint on defendant regarding sale in order to give him some chance to get before court of appeal anyway.
2 -
Chaisty says judge has balanced a certainty of loss for Lex Dominus against a possible risk for #cafc. No evidence risk will not continue to be suffered anyway.What is this certainty of loss then? I thought a deal wasn’t imminent and we shouldn’t be listening to internet rumours.4
-
God they really are desperate arent they!!1
-
It's between him and ESI - that's why they are in court now and why they will be party to any trial. They are all losers but now it's about cutting their losses not profiteering at the expense of a new Charlton owner. Happy Days.killerandflash said:
But it's under his name I imagine.LargeAddick said:
big IF, and if he has I very much doubt it's his moneykillerandflash said:
If PE has loaned/given money to the club to pay wages, I imagine TS will return it to him?Cardinal Sin said:The appeal will have no consequences for Thomas Sandgaard if he is owner before then. It will simply be a case of ESI2 fighting for some of the lucre ESI1 have grabbed from the sale. Nimer can run away but Matt Southall can't. There is now a strong incentive for Nimer selling the club for a relatively small fee as that might persuade ESI2 to drop their interest given the costs involved and lack of certainty that those could be awarded as well.
Either way I'm sure TS will want to start off with everything cleared up, and without the prospect of further action. No way would PE have invested/given/loaned money without some sort of paperwork, whether between him and CAFC or him and ESI.0 -
Bollocks, my connection dropped out and they wont let me back in
0 -
Saying that you are going to do it and actually doing are two separate things.ISawLeaburnScore said:It is very unlikely for the judge to give permission to appeal his own decision - they are still at liberty to make an application to the Court of Appeal as they have indicated they will do.0 -
Then don't take cases for con-men. They have already been found guilty in the court of public opinion. The CAFC fans took care of that.ForeverAddickted said:Chaisty describes the judge's decision yesterday as "draconian". Says they'll be "chasing shadows" to recover any damages they win off Panorama Magic. Says it isn't "a risk they will be prejudiced - but a certainty".0 -
🙀ForeverAddickted said:So it is now purely between Lex Luther and Panorama to fight it out amongst themselves0 - Sponsored links:
-
I've only seen a few QCs speak in court, but they've all put across their arguments with grace and decorum. I've never seen a QC get so down in the mud and dirty as Chaisty.0
-
Let me get this right.
These Mugs, Farnell, Elliott and the Egyptian have put 500k + into the club without actually ever owning it. They will now not see a penny of this!?
2 -
My understanding (solicitor but not in this field). First a request for permission to appeal has to be made to Pearce - that's what they are doing today. Usually these get refused unless there is a clear point of law which the judge thinks important enough to go to the Court of Appeal .
If refused, an application for permission to appeal is made to the Court of Appeal. It is considered by a single judge on the papers. If refused, in some circumstances the appellant can ask for a short hearing about the permission. If permission is granted then the hearing goes ahead in front of three judges.
What I'm not sure about is timelines on injunctions. I have a case which my side won. The other side was refused permission from the original court but got permission from the Court of Appeal. That took about 6 weeks. The hearing won't take place for more than a year because the Court of Appeal is so backed up.
I guess they could apply for an emergency interim injunction from the CoA but I would have thought you would need a really important high profile case to get that fast tracked.9 -
he won't but the Solicitors who appointed him may be.kentred2 said:Chaisty might be chasing shadows too for his money if he loses as Lex Dominus will probably shutdown.1 -
This could mean that @SandgaardThomas cannot buy the shares in ESI until they court of appeal decides whether it will allow Lex Dominus to appeal. Seven days suggested by Chaisty.
1 -
Potentially a nuisance.ForeverAddickted said:Chaisty requests a "further restraint on the defendent for seven days" so his client can get in front of the Court of Appeals.
Chaisty now arguing for further period of restraint on defendant regarding sale in order to give him some chance to get before court of appeal anyway.0 -
They can't buy the club for £1 but are willing too part with £500k+.J BLOCK said:Let me get this right.
These Mugs, Farnell, Elliott and the Egyptian have put 500k + into the club without actually ever owning it. They will now not see a penny of this!?1 -
What a guy! Is there a place for him on TS's new board?ForeverAddickted said:Judge Pearce doesn't feel his decision yesterday was "irrational" and he refuses the right to appeal.1 -
Chaisty now arguing for further period of restraint on defendant regarding sale in order to give him some chance to get before court of appeal anyway.
We will be appealing your ruling of no injunction. Please grant us an injunction until our appeal can be heard.6 -
Pearce rips of his gown to reveal a Bury FC shirt40
This discussion has been closed.
