ESI 1 v ESI 2 - Initial Hearing 01-02/09/2020, Court of Appeal 17/09/2020 (p127)

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

Sorry, I'm obviously missing something.

Is this the case or not? -

Richard Cawley

@RichCawleySLP

Judge Pearce doesn't feel his decision yesterday was "irrational" and he refuses the right to appeal.

4:58 PM · Sep 2, 2020·Twitter Web App

golfaddick said:

killerandflash said:

LargeAddick said:

AdTheAddicK said:

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. 

With all fairness tho, Chaisty could be the sole reason why we no longer exist.

Ridiculous. That is at the door of Elliott, Farnell, Southall and Nimer in no particular order.

If Nimer had never got involved with Elliott in the first place, we would never have had this mess. 


Nimer didnt get involved with Elliott, Farnell did. Worse thing that happened was Nimer & Southall falling out. Nimer wanted revenge & Farnell got involved (on the basis he had previously been screwed by Southall  ?)

GoOnYouHaddocks said:

ForeverAddickted said:

Trial will be a Pyrrhic victory for Lex Dominus even if they win, says Chaisty. Therefore court of appeal should consider balance of convenience.

Be honest, how many of you had to google "Pyrrhic". I know I did.

golfaddick said:

FWIW, I don't think TS is going to walk away, but I don't see him paying off any of the protagonists either. I see him hanging around until a proper deal can be done, but I think we will be screwed by the COA & all this dragging on for months. 

By the time TS officially takeover the transfer deadline will be done & dusted and we will be mid table at best. Players that we had earmarked to join us would have gone elsewhere & we will be playing the youngsters in defence like last night. We are probably ok in midfield & up front, but the back 4 will be so inexperienced, especially if we get injuries to Oshilaja & Purrington and Pearce's injury takes longer than estimated.

ross1 said:

golfaddick said:

Scoham said:

https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/charlton-athletic-get-new-ownership-boost-as-judge-decides-not-to-impose-injunction-blocking-sale/

It says that tomorrow can be also used so that PE can put in an appeal.....

“Given the time and given the potential need to protect the position of any party who seeks to consider appealing my judgement, I will adjourn any application for permission to appeal to the consequential hearing [tomorrow] so that issue doesn’t have to be separately dealt with this evening.”

WoodsideValley said:

stonemuse said:

blackpool72 said:

Clarky said:

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?

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. 

That is the most optomistic post I have ever seen. 

Please God you are correct 

He is, summarised perfectly 

So what's the process of appealing to the Court of Appeals then? Does Chaisty/his team email for a hearing? Call them? Just turn up and wait in line? What are the chances of it being physically possible to have this heard within the allotted 7 day timescale?

Covered End said:

Rothko said:

Talal said:

So if people are saying that the injunction will be extended if the COA grant permission to appeal then surely TS will be more inclined to pay them off. Seems too risky otherwise. 

Or more likely walk away

Please don't try and bring our mood levels down to yours.

aliwibble said:

BrentfordAddick said:

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.

Personally, I would be lobbying Mihail. He's always on about just trying to do what's best for the club, and now he can prove it. Instruct Lauren to inform the Court of Appeal that the proceeds of any sale will be lodged in an escrow account until such time as the trial at the end of November has been resolved. That demonstrates good faith on Nimer's part and moves the balance of risk away from LD, so there is no need for an injunction preventing the sale of the club until the trial. It's also a way for him to make up for him making a bit of a pig's ear of his evidence submission.

Although whether he/Nimer would actually be willing to do it is another matter entirely...

If they won't, is there any way that Sandgaard could attach himself to the case as a 3rd party, and request the court to make an order regardless of whether either party is in favour? Legal bods, any thoughts?

Gary Poole said:

aliwibble said:

BrentfordAddick said:

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.

Personally, I would be lobbying Mihail. He's always on about just trying to do what's best for the club, and now he can prove it. Instruct Lauren to inform the Court of Appeal that the proceeds of any sale will be lodged in an escrow account until such time as the trial at the end of November has been resolved. That demonstrates good faith on Nimer's part and moves the balance of risk away from LD, so there is no need for an injunction preventing the sale of the club until the trial. It's also a way for him to make up for him making a bit of a pig's ear of his evidence submission.

Although whether he/Nimer would actually be willing to do it is another matter entirely...

If they won't, is there any way that Sandgaard could attach himself to the case as a 3rd party, and request the court to make an order regardless of whether either party is in favour? Legal bods, any thoughts?

I was really hoping that LK was going to suggest this today, but I guess that might be tricky without your client instructing you to.

There was a lot made about not being able to get damages from Panorama Magic if the sale went ahead and even if costs awarded were payed. I would have liked Elliots’ finances to have been brought into it, in that if the buyer walks away due to ‘back door’ (oo er) injunction, does Elliot have the means to compensate Panorama Magic for their loss? Seems unlikely of a serial bankrupt who can’t even spell his own name.