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
-
Are they hoping that by delaying a bit longer, that TS will pay them off quickly so he can buy the club?2
-
Well I'm quite taken aback by that. I will say that this would have been very unlikely had the hearings not been separated across two sittings yesterday and today. The perfect opportunity to regroup, put in place a new strategy and unfortunately the openness from Sandgaard and Mihail got exploited ruthlessly.5
-
what do you think will happen next week now?ISawLeaburnScore said:Well I'm quite taken aback by that. I will say that this would have been very unlikely had the hearings not been separated across two sittings yesterday and today. The perfect opportunity to regroup, put in place a new strategy and unfortunately the openness from Sandgaard and Mihail got exploited ruthlessly.0 -
Nothing to do with the EU and hence brexitSix-a-bag-of-nuts said:
Surely ECHR has no jurisdiction here post Brexit?WattsTheMatter said:
This will still be the UK Supreme Court. With the exception of Human Rights and the associated ECHR, the SC is the highest court in Britain.Cafc43v3r said:
What about the ECJ or its replacement?cafcfan said:
Nope. The Supreme Court replaced the House of Lords as the final arbiters in 2009.golfaddick said:
Yep, thought there was another strand to it all. Got an O level in Economic & Public Affairs 37 years ago but couldnt remember what was next after COA.Cafc43v3r said:
House of Lords, it won't get in front of the ECJ in time......LawrieAbrahams said:
The RCJ is the building where the Court of Appeal is based.golfaddick said:So, if I have this right.
PE wanted to stop the sale of the club so wants an injunction.
Injunction denied.
PE appeals that decision.
Appeal denied.
Appeals the appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Granted.
Why the feck not just go straight to the top in the first place.
I hasten to add I don't think the Court of Appeal is the furthest they can go. Royal Court of Justice ??
Sorry that was in answer to @golfaddick2 -
Think we have better legal minds on our site than the bloody law courts, Well Done!!0
-
If you contrast The Upbeats being cheered around The Valley pitch, with the filthy scum who are currently pawing over the carcass of our great club, it might well make you weep at the extremes of human nature.
21 -
I could add that TS could pay off PE within 7 days, and ESI 1 can sell.blackpool72 said:
That is the most optomistic post I have ever seen.Clarky said:
Thank you for this. So the Court of Appeal has to consider this within 7 days, any longer and ESI 1 can sell. Even if they do consider within 7 days they are unlikely to grant the appeal, so ESI 1 can sell. And even if they do grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal they might not extend the temporary injunction so ES1 1 could sell. So the odds are still in our favour.Scratchingvalleycat said:The judge has given them seven days to seek permission from the Court of Appeal to allow them to lodge an appeal. This will be one appeal judge hearing from a QC that another judge has misled himself to sufficiently misinterpret the situation in the decision he came to. Most of these fail since it is unusual for the appeal court judge to try and second guess the original judge. However, Judge Pearce did not give them the right to appeal to himself which means he has stood by his decision but has given Chaisty a chance to appeal to seek the right to appeal from another judge, but this must be heard within the seven days. Judge Pearce gave as part of his reasoning yesterday that the club itself was at risk if he granted their injuction. This will be noted by the appeal court jusge deciding whether to give Lex Dominus the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal (three judges sitting in several months time). However I think it may be possible for the appeal court judge to grant them right to an appeal but not extend the injunction on the grounds of the damage that would likely cause.
My guess is that this is buying time for his client to try and secure a payment from Sandgaaed to go away. Unintentional legalised blackmail?
Please God you are correct2 -
Okay, thankskentred2 said:
Nothing to do with the EU and hence brexitSix-a-bag-of-nuts said:
Surely ECHR has no jurisdiction here post Brexit?WattsTheMatter said:
This will still be the UK Supreme Court. With the exception of Human Rights and the associated ECHR, the SC is the highest court in Britain.Cafc43v3r said:
What about the ECJ or its replacement?cafcfan said:
Nope. The Supreme Court replaced the House of Lords as the final arbiters in 2009.golfaddick said:
Yep, thought there was another strand to it all. Got an O level in Economic & Public Affairs 37 years ago but couldnt remember what was next after COA.Cafc43v3r said:
House of Lords, it won't get in front of the ECJ in time......LawrieAbrahams said:
The RCJ is the building where the Court of Appeal is based.golfaddick said:So, if I have this right.
PE wanted to stop the sale of the club so wants an injunction.
Injunction denied.
PE appeals that decision.
Appeal denied.
Appeals the appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Granted.
Why the feck not just go straight to the top in the first place.
I hasten to add I don't think the Court of Appeal is the furthest they can go. Royal Court of Justice ??
Sorry that was in answer to @golfaddick0 -
Sorry @sillav nitram all I know is I've given up trying to keep up with the threads, and your name is written backwards. No intense offended.sillav nitram said:
We've already discussed this, this is my department and please don't lump me in with those wankers, @JamesSeed!JamesSeed said:blackpool72 said:Yet another week goes by with our transfer embargo in place.
Fuck off Elliott and die a painful death you corrupt peice of shit.
If he’s closed down and asset stripped a girls‘ boarding school he won’t bat an eyelid at destroying an historic London club to make himself a few million quid. I suspect he has a personality disorder.Psychopath.0 -
For fucks sake...🤬...I still got a feeling it will happen,got to ain’t it...🤞🏻,but my oh my are we being put through the wringer...ahhhhhhhhhh....!!!!!0
- Sponsored links:
-
I would say it still has to be considered significantly more likely than not that their appeal application will be denied by the Court of Appeal. They are still playing for time and leverage to get money - same targets different approach.roseandcrown said:
what do you think will happen next week now?ISawLeaburnScore said:Well I'm quite taken aback by that. I will say that this would have been very unlikely had the hearings not been separated across two sittings yesterday and today. The perfect opportunity to regroup, put in place a new strategy and unfortunately the openness from Sandgaard and Mihail got exploited ruthlessly.
5 -
Trying to sum up my mood after today's ruling is difficult but I feel the below will suffice:
Fuck sake.
3 -
I don't think PE wants paying off, otherwise he'd be gone by now and this would be over. If he does, he wants a hell of a lot more than to cover his loses.Clarky said:
I could add that TS could pay off PE within 7 days, and ESI 1 can sell.blackpool72 said:
That is the most optomistic post I have ever seen.Clarky said:
Thank you for this. So the Court of Appeal has to consider this within 7 days, any longer and ESI 1 can sell. Even if they do consider within 7 days they are unlikely to grant the appeal, so ESI 1 can sell. And even if they do grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal they might not extend the temporary injunction so ES1 1 could sell. So the odds are still in our favour.Scratchingvalleycat said:The judge has given them seven days to seek permission from the Court of Appeal to allow them to lodge an appeal. This will be one appeal judge hearing from a QC that another judge has misled himself to sufficiently misinterpret the situation in the decision he came to. Most of these fail since it is unusual for the appeal court judge to try and second guess the original judge. However, Judge Pearce did not give them the right to appeal to himself which means he has stood by his decision but has given Chaisty a chance to appeal to seek the right to appeal from another judge, but this must be heard within the seven days. Judge Pearce gave as part of his reasoning yesterday that the club itself was at risk if he granted their injuction. This will be noted by the appeal court jusge deciding whether to give Lex Dominus the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal (three judges sitting in several months time). However I think it may be possible for the appeal court judge to grant them right to an appeal but not extend the injunction on the grounds of the damage that would likely cause.
My guess is that this is buying time for his client to try and secure a payment from Sandgaaed to go away. Unintentional legalised blackmail?
Please God you are correct0 -
I assume ES1 2 will not want this going to November and will only be looking for a settlement? Surely if it was to go into November the club would go into admin and they would have nothing?1
-
Putting them inside quote marks would tick a few boxes.ross1 said:
Just putting them in italics helped as I realised you were relaying information and not just making a commentForeverAddickted said:
I'll put them in bold next time as well - Might help a bit moreMiserableoldgit said:
Thanks for the updates, though it was difficult to follow them inbetween all the speculation.ForeverAddickted said:Hearing is brought to a close by Judge Pearce.
😉
0 -
Indeed, the inability to deal with Teams that delayed things by, what, 90 minutes could have been the decider. Still, only been working under these conditions since March.ISawLeaburnScore said:Well I'm quite taken aback by that. I will say that this would have been very unlikely had the hearings not been separated across two sittings yesterday and today. The perfect opportunity to regroup, put in place a new strategy and unfortunately the openness from Sandgaard and Mihail got exploited ruthlessly.0 -
Feels like I have pulled the woman of my dreams, gone back to hers and she striped down to a chastity belt that has a seven day countdown on it.26
-
I'll think your find it does, it was in Boris's "oven ready" Brexit deal, that no one including the cabinet bothered reading.kentred2 said:
Nothing to do with the EU and hence brexitSix-a-bag-of-nuts said:
Surely ECHR has no jurisdiction here post Brexit?WattsTheMatter said:
This will still be the UK Supreme Court. With the exception of Human Rights and the associated ECHR, the SC is the highest court in Britain.Cafc43v3r said:
What about the ECJ or its replacement?cafcfan said:
Nope. The Supreme Court replaced the House of Lords as the final arbiters in 2009.golfaddick said:
Yep, thought there was another strand to it all. Got an O level in Economic & Public Affairs 37 years ago but couldnt remember what was next after COA.Cafc43v3r said:
House of Lords, it won't get in front of the ECJ in time......LawrieAbrahams said:
The RCJ is the building where the Court of Appeal is based.golfaddick said:So, if I have this right.
PE wanted to stop the sale of the club so wants an injunction.
Injunction denied.
PE appeals that decision.
Appeal denied.
Appeals the appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Granted.
Why the feck not just go straight to the top in the first place.
I hasten to add I don't think the Court of Appeal is the furthest they can go. Royal Court of Justice ??
Sorry that was in answer to @golfaddick0 -
Social distancing...👍cfgs said:Feels like I have pulled the woman of my dreams, gone back to hers and she striped down to a chastity belt that has a seven day countdown on it.5 -
What, all lawyers? Human rights lawyers, criminal lawyers who prosecute the worst people in our society? Family lawyers who look after the interest of children in family disputes?limeygent said:There's this whole separate world going on called the legal profession, these people making fortunes out of others' misery, and they create absolutely nothing for the real world. Hate lawyers.
I think you're being a bit harsh mate. Our democracy is based on law.6 - Sponsored links:
-
Is it the same judge that they'd have to apply to in order to get this injunction "varied"?0
-
Fucking late equalisers costing again. At least we can't blame this one on Naby Sarr.
4 -
Just sent Mr Chaisty an article about the 20K raised for upbeats and the demise of Bury FC......not that it will make a difference to the cold hearted bastardmid_life_crisis said:If you contrast The Upbeats being cheered around The Valley pitch, with the filthy scum who are currently pawing over the carcass of our great club, it might well make you weep at the extremes of human nature.5 -
ISawLeaburnScore about them benefiting from dragging it over two days.
There was no need for a MM official site update. They could just keep attacking through whatever door they wanted which would have used up patience earlier if it was part of one long session.1 -
Seriously, no point in anyone emailing Chaisty abuse or anything for that matter. All is does is assist Elliott and co casting our fanbase in a bad light.
He is a barrister. He is paid to represent clients. He doesn't necessarily have to agree with them, but it is his job to represent whether he agrees or not.24 -
I know. As that wasn't submitted in evidence yesterday, didn't the judge determine that he shouldn't take into account any rumours on the internet regarding potential sales, which in turn meant it wasn't factored into his decision regarding balance of convenience? Now Chaisty is to appeal to the Court of Appeal against his ruling, and TS has been very public on a sale subsequent to Judge Pearce's ruling, aren't the Court of Appeal next week more likely to be inclined towards Chaisty's arguments that there is a potential real loss to Lex Dominus? And then it goes on......Cafc43v3r said:
It wasn't submitted in evidence yesterday. The statement, used today, was made after last night.robinofottershaw said:So yesterday we were surprised that the judge didn’t take into account the speculation that the club was about to be sold to TS.Today the judge has refused permission for the plaintiff to appeal his decision, but given the plaintiff wants to then appeal further to the Court of Appeal, the reports of an imminent takeover IS relevant and he will allow them an interim injunction for 7 days.
I am no expert but then shouldn’t the judge have taken this into account yesterday?
Everyone should have probably kept quite until after this hearing. Including TS.0 -
If there’s any concrete evidence that all these chancers are crooks and only in it for their personal gain, can’t that be used as leverage, particularly as Chastity Belt moved the goalposts today?1
-
The judge totally contradicted himself saying yesterday there was no evidence a sale and throwing out the injunction and today because there was some evidence to allow a temp one. I don't get it.3
-
With all fairness tho, Chaisty could be the sole reason why we no longer exist.WattsTheMatter said:Seriously, no point in anyone emailing Chaisty abuse or anything for that matter. All is does is assist Elliott and co casting our fanbase in a bad light.
He is a barrister. He is paid to represent clients. He doesn't necessarily have to agree with them, but it is his job to represent whether he agrees or not.2 -
It is not press speculation when Thomas Sandgaard is quoted saying "I think it's a done deal".ForeverAddickted said:
Was ridiculous that the judge let them ignore the takeover yesterday yet use it as evidence todaygolfaddick said:
I wouldn't bet on it.......this us CAFC don't forget.killerandflash said:
The Court of Appeal won't examine the case next WednesdayLargeAddick said:
it's to appeal to the Court of Appeal to allow them to appeal the injunction decisionkillerandflash said:
The week is to appeal to the court of appeal to get a date, not to have the actual hearing there. Any hearing would be months, even a year awaySELR_addicks said:
This. Even knowledge of a date at the court of appeals will mean they can grant extra time.Bedsaddick said:There is probably something that they will come up with on the 9th to prevent it further more . It’s bloody ridiculous
It's an injunction and the judge has basically fully backtracked on his verdict yesterday.
It's incredibly unlikely to be granted
The week is to allow Lex to appeal to the Court of Appeal to get a hearing in the first place. The likelihood is that this will be rejected
My betting is that the COA will grant an appeal & therefore the injunction will not only stay in force but will be extended until an appeal is heard, which could be months.
We are screwed. Anyone who thought Judge John Deed yesterday was on our side had better think again. Only needed a nudge from their lawyer today to get him to Google what's going on with regard to the takeover & he bends over & let's them shaft him. Would have been better yesterday to bring it all up then, even if you couldnt.
The law is an ass
Nothing has changed despite MM's statement on the OS - It remains press speculation1
This discussion has been closed.
