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
-
He posted that in 2015. Just incase anyone gets needlessly wound up (like I did).Stig said:
I have nothing but contempt for anyone who would post such a shitty, condescending, self-congratulatory meme. And that's before considering that it looks a bit too Millwall for my liking.limeygent said:This is on Farnell's Facebook page.
I can't possibly commit to type what I hope happens to Farnell.1 -
It would be far worse if Panorama were seeking to appeal had they had lost yesterday.......... still been a good 48 hours for TS and CAFC18
-
So is it Elliotttttt that needs to pay the wages this month if he is so adamant he owns the club....hope this fucker gets what he deserves after all this gets sorted one way or another0
-
Except that, as I understood comments from others on this thread who seem to know their onions and indeed the Judge today, as his decision yesterday was based upon his assessment of the balance of convenience, it's considered unlikely that an appeal to set aside such an assessment (and thereby grant the injunction until the trial date) will succeed.SteveKielyCambridge said:Worst thing, for me, is that this is obviously correct. We all know that the minute TS pays Panorama, Panorama is going to transfer the money to Nimar's account and then fold, leaving Lex Dominus to try and sue the former director of a no-longer-existent business in the UAE's courts. I honestly cannot see how the injunction will not be extended until the trial on that basis, because otherwise you are offering a remedy that everyone knows is not really a remedy.
What I'm unclear about is whether the judge was indicating that he thought LD would likely fail at the first hurdle (within 7 days) of obtaining permission from the CoA to appeal or in the appeal itself (presumably at a later date).
If it's the former, then 7 days is inconvenient but unlikely to trouble TS too much. If it's the latter, then the concern is whether (at that hearing in the next 7 days) they are also able to obtain from the CoA an extension of the 7 day injunction granted today until the eventual date of the Appeal hearing and thus effectively reverse yesterday's decision anyway.
Any corrections/thoughts from learned Addicks much appreciated.3 -
Yeah I looked 2015....he knows betterChunes said:
He posted that in 2015. Just incase anyone gets needlessly wound up (like I did).Stig said:
I have nothing but contempt for anyone who would post such a shitty, condescending, self-congratulatory meme. And that's before considering that it looks a bit too Millwall for my liking.limeygent said:This is on Farnell's Facebook page.
I can't possibly commit to type what I hope happens to Farnell.0 -
So can we appeal their appeal to the court of appeals?
Seriously, these Tory bastards just make this shit up as they go along just to eek out as much money from any desperate sod with a penny to his name.11 -
He is, summarised perfectlyblackpool72 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 -
and what's the likelihood of the COA hearing this?0
-
Which would be ominous.cafcfan1990 said:
Exactly. My opinion is that Elliott has not provided enough evidence to prove he owns the club. I'd really like to see the EFL reject him ASAP now!Talal said:
Then why not grant the injunction yesterday? If this injunction is extended it's the same thing isn't it?SteveKielyCambridge said:Worst thing, for me, is that this is obviously correct. We all know that the minute TS pays Panorama, Panorama is going to transfer the money to Nimar's account and then fold, leaving Lex Dominus to try and sue the former director of a no-longer-existent business in the UAE's courts. I honestly cannot see how the injunction will not be extended until the trial on that basis, because otherwise you are offering a remedy that everyone knows is not really a remedy.
...for Lex Dominus.
0 -
Frustrating day but the injunction is to give time for the court of appeal to decide if they can appeal. It's a step further in the chain than an injunction yesterday would have been0
-
Sponsored links:
-
So nobody gets to speak in the next seven days? Evidence and ruling just gets passed to another judge to make a decision in their pants?0
-
Dunno. It feels like yesterday the judge's view was that there was no point of an injunction because a) there were no buyers and b) an injunction could damage the club. However today there are buyers and so there is more justice in having an injunction, as the body seeking the injunction is facing a potential, even a likely, material loss. Presumably the judge reading the notes will read both days and can, if they want, go on Google to see all the stuff about how the deal is about to cross the line, thereby increasing the chances of a longer injunction.
Would be good to know thoughts on who to lobby, what to do. It feels like the EFL would help us by saying that Lex Dominus or whatever can't be trusted to run a football club. Guidance from CAST etc welcome.2 -
I believe so.Talal said:Is it the same judge that they'd have to apply to in order to get this injunction "varied"?0 -
800+ new posts since this morning ffs1
-
Seeing yesterday's decision was based on risk to the club I would have thought he meant the former and it will fail at the first hurdle.PeanutsMolloy said:
Except that, as I understood comments from others on this thread who seem to know their onions and indeed the Judge today, as his decision yesterday was based upon his assessment of the balance of convenience, it's considered unlikely that an appeal to set aside such an assessment (and thereby grant the injunction until the trial date) will succeed.SteveKielyCambridge said:Worst thing, for me, is that this is obviously correct. We all know that the minute TS pays Panorama, Panorama is going to transfer the money to Nimar's account and then fold, leaving Lex Dominus to try and sue the former director of a no-longer-existent business in the UAE's courts. I honestly cannot see how the injunction will not be extended until the trial on that basis, because otherwise you are offering a remedy that everyone knows is not really a remedy.
What I'm unclear about is whether the judge was indicating that he thought LD would likely fail at the first hurdle (within 7 days) of obtaining permission from the CoA to appeal or in the appeal itself (presumably at a later date).
If it's the former, then 7 days is inconvenient but unlikely to trouble TS too much. If it's the latter, then the concern is whether (at that hearing in the next 7 days) they are also able to obtain from the CoA an extension of the 7 day injunction granted today until the eventual date of the Appeal hearing and thus effectively reverse yesterday's decision anyway.
Any corrections/thoughts from learned Addicks much appreciated.
2 -
Cheers. Personally, I don't care one way or another that he's posted it. In fact, on balance I think it's good in a way because it gives a clear signal of the utter cockwomble he is.Chunes said:
He posted that in 2015. Just incase anyone gets needlessly wound up (like I did).Stig said:
I have nothing but contempt for anyone who would post such a shitty, condescending, self-congratulatory meme. And that's before considering that it looks a bit too Millwall for my liking.limeygent said:This is on Farnell's Facebook page.
I can't possibly commit to type what I hope happens to Farnell.
My final sentence relates to his behaviour with regard to our club. This winds me up no end.1 -
Ridiculous. That is at the door of Elliott, Farnell, Southall and Nimer in no particular order.AdTheAddicK said:
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.21 -
TS needs to speak to Freshfield's from now on before posting anything9
-
What I warned about yesterday, an injunction via the back door. It all depends now on wether the Court of Appeal grant permission to appeal, if they do then without doubt the injunction will be extended until the appeal is heard.2
-
Sponsored links:
-
Injunction specialist.0
-
I think the new Judge only gets the trial notes in these cases?There has not been a technical objection, so they are basically saying the judge got it wrong and hoping another judge agrees.
Good luck with that.2 -
......... and most significantly Duchatelet and Murray!!!LargeAddick said:
Ridiculous. That is at the door of Elliott, Farnell, Southall and Nimer in no particular order.AdTheAddicK said:
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.3 -
It’s not a hearing. No one will be present. The Judge reviews the documentary evidence and makes a decision.MattF said:What bearing will yesterday's decision have on the judge at the court of appeal? Will he have to acknowledge that the injunction was refused twice? Do they get to submit new evidence to the court of appeal?4 -
Just caught up on the thread.Don’t think anyone else has mentioned that Marian Mihail coincidentally left the call, just as Judge Pearce was reading out his statement from footballleagueworld (but before granting the 7 day injunction).
Not particularly important but I presume he realised his loose lips had caused a breach in the ship and didn’t want the risk of any flak......0 -
They appeal directly to the Court of Appeal to grant an appeal.ForeverAddickted said:
How can they do this?Chunes said:Is the judge allowing an appeal, or are they pursuing an appeal in spite of the judge?
0 -
My take on timescales:
They (Lex) will need to get their application in quick, certainlyy by the end of this week. That means drafting a skeleton argument and putting together a bundle. The application for permission to appeal will be heard quickly. It will be accompanied by an urgent application to extend the interim injunction until the permission application is heard and if it is granted to extend until the main hearing.
The main hearing should take place quickly if permission is granted. In a case I linked to earlier which was similar, it took two weeks for original court's decision to decision in court of appeal.4 -
They get the judgement including refusal by the original judge for appeal, MM witness statement, any other relevant documentation, a skeleton argument from Lex as to why permission should be granted, a short statement from Panorama saying why it shouldn't.Redrobo said:I think the new Judge only gets the trial notes in these cases?There has not been a technical objection, so they are basically saying the judge got it wrong and hoping another judge agrees.
Good luck with that.2 -
We can't wait until November.Jints said: seeMy take on timescales:
They (Lex) will need to get their application in quick, certainlyy by the end of this week. That means drafting a skeleton argument and putting together a bundle. The application for permission to appeal will be heard quickly. It will be accompanied by an urgent application to extend the interim injunction until the permission application is heard and if it is granted to extend until the main hearing.
The main hearing should take place quickly if permission is granted. In a case I linked to earlier which was similar, it took two weeks for original court's decision to decision in court of appeal.3 -
8
This discussion has been closed.
