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 imagine he has property.ME14addick said:How is Elliott going to pay Chaisty's fees if he loses.0 -
Now would be a good time for the EFL to reject the appeals. They have had long enough!18
-
Said before yesterdays hearing. There's gotta be a reason they ploughed so much money into a company they never actually officially owned (assuming it to be accurate and true). Something put in the small print by Farnell? But then why weren't it pulled out the bag yesterday?killerandflash said:
If Lex have put in money to cover wages (something which has never been disproven), then that at least demonstrates they have some money. After all Lex isn't just PEGary Poole said:
No, I’m not convinced they do, but my point was Lex’s QC argued extensively about the likelihood of recovering any money from Panorama as being slim, surely the same could have been raised about Elliot? If you take out an injunction and then are unsuccessful in the following case, you are required to compensate the other side for any losses occurred by them due to the injunction. I did not mention anything about TS re the case itself.killerandflash said:
But then this case wasn't Lex vs TS, it was Lex vs Panorama and what are Panorama's finances? Nimer hasn't been seen for months, and has put nothing into the clubGary Poole said:
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.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?
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.
Do Panorama have the finances to pay costs?
By contrast Panorama are Nimer (untraceable) and Southall (who prefers taking from the club)0 -
With the proceeds from the school which he asset stripped and sold on to developers. I suspect he made millions. Although good luck finding them.ME14addick said:How is Elliott going to pay Chaisty's fees if he loses.3 -
I just wondered why Chaisty would continue if there's a likelihood that PE won't be able to pay him.Talal said:
Of all the things for us to ponder over and worry about I don't think this is one of them.ME14addick said:How is Elliott going to pay Chaisty's fees if he loses.0 -
Sounds like a lot wasn't put in the printi_b_b_o_r_g said:
Said before yesterdays hearing. There's gotta be a reason they ploughed so much money into a company they never actually officially owned (assuming it to be accurate and true). Something put in the small print by Farnell? But then why weren't it pulled out the bag yesterday?killerandflash said:
If Lex have put in money to cover wages (something which has never been disproven), then that at least demonstrates they have some money. After all Lex isn't just PEGary Poole said:
No, I’m not convinced they do, but my point was Lex’s QC argued extensively about the likelihood of recovering any money from Panorama as being slim, surely the same could have been raised about Elliot? If you take out an injunction and then are unsuccessful in the following case, you are required to compensate the other side for any losses occurred by them due to the injunction. I did not mention anything about TS re the case itself.killerandflash said:
But then this case wasn't Lex vs TS, it was Lex vs Panorama and what are Panorama's finances? Nimer hasn't been seen for months, and has put nothing into the clubGary Poole said:
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.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?
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.
Do Panorama have the finances to pay costs?
By contrast Panorama are Nimer (untraceable) and Southall (who prefers taking from the club)1 -
Thank-you this sounds good for us.Arkwright said:What has happened here is that the Judge has ruled against the injunction and declined to give leave to appeal. Panorama has won. Judges do not like getting appealed. I did wonder with the nature of his summing up yesterday whether he was setting his judgement up for scrutiny in case of appeal covering all bases , his thoughts and legal processes so that should an appeal come, he would not look foolish to a higher court. In English law, if a judge does not give leave to appeal then the appellant can apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal. That’s all that will be happening in the next seven days - the respective legal teams will put down in writing why they are right and this will go to a senior judge - a lord justice of appeal and that judge will decide whether there has been sufficient in the hearing of the case to justify an appeal. There are set guidelines and timings and no face to face hearing. If there is and the trial judge has gone out of his way to say there isn’t (and put his head on the block a bit) then the matter will go to a hearing but by the time the Court of Appeal get around to hearing it - solely on the injunction - the main case in November will have been heard. Most appeals of this nature fail but what it does do is keep the appellant in the game.
2 questions if I may please?
Our concern is that an injunction can be imposed to prevent the sale, until the main case in November or until a possible Court of Appeal case.
How do you know that you are correct?
Are you in the legal profession?
Looking forward to your reply.0 -
Not really sure about any of these legal terms, "balance of convenience", etc, though got the basic drift of what is happening (I think).
Just wondering, if we can push the EFL for the decision on the OADT's would that not help us ?
Surely they are following all this and can see that the longer this drags on the more perilous we are becoming.2 -
My thinking too. Surely now would be a chance for the EFL to redeem themselves.Miserableoldgit said:Not really sure about any of these legal terms, "balance of convenience", etc, though got the basic drift of what is happening (I think).
Just wondering, if we can push the EFL for the decision on the OADT's would that not help us ?
Surely they are following all this and can see that the longer this drags on the more perilous we are becoming.1 - Sponsored links:
-
How can you push the EFL?Miserableoldgit said:Not really sure about any of these legal terms, "balance of convenience", etc, though got the basic drift of what is happening (I think).
Just wondering, if we can push the EFL for the decision on the OADT's would that not help us ?
Surely they are following all this and can see that the longer this drags on the more perilous we are becoming.0 -
0
-
Agreed BR7!BR7_addick said:
We get it, but just for the record I stand by my rights to not piss on Elliott if I ever saw him on fire.jams said:Chill... people claiming democracy is dead and why can't they see what's going on are missing the point, this is democracy - everyone has a right to seek an appeal, much as I don't like it! The time to be worried is if they are given permission to pursue the appeal in the COA1 -
What? Even this one?aliwibble said:
How do you think I feel? I've actually got to read all of them...i_b_b_o_r_g said:800+ new posts since this morning ffs0 -
Ha! No - I’m not a lawyer - I’m worse - I’m a client of lawyers - in my profession i regularly have to resort to arbitration and litigation so I’m the mug wot pays the bills - and eye watering they generally are. I have had some experience of appealing to the C of A and the Supreme CourtCovered End said:
Thank-you this sounds good for us.Arkwright said:What has happened here is that the Judge has ruled against the injunction and declined to give leave to appeal. Panorama has won. Judges do not like getting appealed. I did wonder with the nature of his summing up yesterday whether he was setting his judgement up for scrutiny in case of appeal covering all bases , his thoughts and legal processes so that should an appeal come, he would not look foolish to a higher court. In English law, if a judge does not give leave to appeal then the appellant can apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal. That’s all that will be happening in the next seven days - the respective legal teams will put down in writing why they are right and this will go to a senior judge - a lord justice of appeal and that judge will decide whether there has been sufficient in the hearing of the case to justify an appeal. There are set guidelines and timings and no face to face hearing. If there is and the trial judge has gone out of his way to say there isn’t (and put his head on the block a bit) then the matter will go to a hearing but by the time the Court of Appeal get around to hearing it - solely on the injunction - the main case in November will have been heard. Most appeals of this nature fail but what it does do is keep the appellant in the game.
2 questions if I may please?
Our concern is that an injunction can be imposed to prevent the sale, until the main case in November or until a possible Court of Appeal case.
How do you know that you are correct? Hi
Are you in the legal profession?
Looking forward to your reply.8 -
Not in my opinion.Rothko said:
But hasn’t that changed with the ‘immanent buyer’ stuff being thrown around?PeanutsMolloy said:This is from @Blucher ‘s very helpful post this morning.
“The difficulty which Elliot faces is that the ground upon which the application for an injunction failed - the balance of convenience - is very much a matter of impression for a Judge. Having carefully reviewed the evidence and listened to over three hours of submissions, an appeal court is likely to be reluctant to overturn the conclusion which he has reached. On that basis, an appeal is unlikely to have a real prospect of success and nor is there is any other compelling reason for it to be heard.”
I take a lot of comfort from that and from Judge Pearce’s comment that, while he was not so arrogant as to completely dismiss the possibility, thought it likely that LD’s appeal to COA would fail.
I understood the balance of convenience to be the amount of harm caused.
If Elliot gets an injunction it adversely effects @100,00 people.
If Elliot loses it effects Elliot.0 -
Not a chance his property is at risk. The case is being brought by Lex he is no stranger to liquidating a company should it incur liabilities just another example of the makeup of these people, they play the system but dont pay the Bill's should they lose. I would like to have seen the outcome if they judge had said today " ok you can have your 7 days but pay your costs run up so far and then some on account to cover the next phase " to bit arseholes the lot of themElfsborgAddick said:
I imagine he has property.ME14addick said:How is Elliott going to pay Chaisty's fees if he loses.1 -
I don't really know, sorry.JamesSeed said:
How can you push the EFL?Miserableoldgit said:Not really sure about any of these legal terms, "balance of convenience", etc, though got the basic drift of what is happening (I think).
Just wondering, if we can push the EFL for the decision on the OADT's would that not help us ?
Surely they are following all this and can see that the longer this drags on the more perilous we are becoming.
Maybe another email/twitter blitz, a visit to their offices.......I trust the people on here, I'm sure someone better than Me could come up with something.0 -
Knowing the EFL they will more than likely pass PE on appeal before next week lolAdTheAddicK said:
My thinking too. Surely now would be a chance for the EFL to redeem themselves.Miserableoldgit said:Not really sure about any of these legal terms, "balance of convenience", etc, though got the basic drift of what is happening (I think).
Just wondering, if we can push the EFL for the decision on the OADT's would that not help us ?
Surely they are following all this and can see that the longer this drags on the more perilous we are becoming.3 -
Re costs and payment of Counsel - Barristers and especially those at the top of their profession are not financially stupid. Brief fees are usually paid up front and in tranches over the period leading up to the trial as Counsel reads in to the case. This of course means that if the case settles before trial they still get paid and will have had their money before trial3
- Sponsored links:
-
Will make comment how he has passed with flying colors. Great job Paul.AndyG said:
Knowing the EFL they will more than likely pass PE on appeal before next week lolAdTheAddicK said:
My thinking too. Surely now would be a chance for the EFL to redeem themselves.Miserableoldgit said:Not really sure about any of these legal terms, "balance of convenience", etc, though got the basic drift of what is happening (I think).
Just wondering, if we can push the EFL for the decision on the OADT's would that not help us ?
Surely they are following all this and can see that the longer this drags on the more perilous we are becoming.0 -
1 -
So if the senior judge, say next Monday, says yes there is justification for an appeal, presumably LD will seek to extend the 7 day injunction even though the judge today warned against doing so? Does that mean everyone is back in court again effectively in a re-run of yesterday's proceedings?Arkwright said:
Ha! No - I’m not a lawyer - I’m worse - I’m a client of lawyers - in my profession i regularly have to resort to arbitration and litigation so I’m the mug wot pays the bills - and eye watering they generally are. I have had some experience of appealing to the C of A and the Supreme CourtCovered End said:
Thank-you this sounds good for us.Arkwright said:What has happened here is that the Judge has ruled against the injunction and declined to give leave to appeal. Panorama has won. Judges do not like getting appealed. I did wonder with the nature of his summing up yesterday whether he was setting his judgement up for scrutiny in case of appeal covering all bases , his thoughts and legal processes so that should an appeal come, he would not look foolish to a higher court. In English law, if a judge does not give leave to appeal then the appellant can apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal. That’s all that will be happening in the next seven days - the respective legal teams will put down in writing why they are right and this will go to a senior judge - a lord justice of appeal and that judge will decide whether there has been sufficient in the hearing of the case to justify an appeal. There are set guidelines and timings and no face to face hearing. If there is and the trial judge has gone out of his way to say there isn’t (and put his head on the block a bit) then the matter will go to a hearing but by the time the Court of Appeal get around to hearing it - solely on the injunction - the main case in November will have been heard. Most appeals of this nature fail but what it does do is keep the appellant in the game.
2 questions if I may please?
Our concern is that an injunction can be imposed to prevent the sale, until the main case in November or until a possible Court of Appeal case.
How do you know that you are correct? Hi
Are you in the legal profession?
Looking forward to your reply.
And if, again say on Monday, grounds for appeal is rejected does this mean there are two days with no injunction, no right to appeal but a separate injunction in place that serves no purpose other than to frustrate the whole process and keep us all guessing and totally pissed off?0 -
.0
-
Feel much better reading that.ross1 said:6 -
In this case we all want Panorama to win BUT only because we expect them to sell the club to TS.Gary Poole said:
Not disagreeing regarding Panorama’s finances and yes I would agree it seems likely that Lex have put some money into the club. But that is not proof of them having the ability to pay compensation that amounted to possibly several million. Despise both parties, but in this case I want Panorama to win as it seems this is in the best interests of the club. I think when on the back foot counter arguments can sometimes be quite successful and have seen this work before.killerandflash said:
If Lex have put in money to cover wages (something which has never been disproven), then that at least demonstrates they have some money. After all Lex isn't just PEGary Poole said:
No, I’m not convinced they do, but my point was Lex’s QC argued extensively about the likelihood of recovering any money from Panorama as being slim, surely the same could have been raised about Elliot? If you take out an injunction and then are unsuccessful in the following case, you are required to compensate the other side for any losses occurred by them due to the injunction. I did not mention anything about TS re the case itself.killerandflash said:
But then this case wasn't Lex vs TS, it was Lex vs Panorama and what are Panorama's finances? Nimer hasn't been seen for months, and has put nothing into the clubGary Poole said:
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.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?
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.
Do Panorama have the finances to pay costs?
By contrast Panorama are Nimer (untraceable) and Southall (who prefers taking from the club)
Removing that, their credibility is awful, something with Chaisty was able to exploit today and yesterday4 -
Sorry, did not realise you were going to post this, I will remove my postcastrust said:0 -
I would have thought that the injunction would be extended until the main court case back in Manchester in November. Whether the Court of Appeal could hear the injunction case in between who knows. The Court of Appeal listings are usually quite full and generally you have to wait ages to get a date - whether anything could be expedited as a result of the urgency of the situation I don’t know0
-
@AddicksaddictAddicksAddict said:
Not a fan of free verse, I take it, @KiwiValley?KiwiValley said:
Your poem doesn’t scan, your word choice is prosaic and there is no rhyme. It’s a “No” from me.3blokes said:It’s bloody brilliant.
What a bunch of supporters this club has.
I’m overwhelmed by all this tbh.
A remarkable achievement.
Hopefully onwards and upwards now.
i spit on free verse, it’s a poet’s curseRhyming’s a poem’s delivery nurse
I’ll get my hat2
This discussion has been closed.
