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

ForeverAddickted said:

So is it a straight forward case of the CoA judge looking at the trial and seeing if they felt that Judge Pearce was wrong?

Or do LD get to present an explanation as to why they feel that Pearce was "irrational, unreasonable or wrong"

It’s the latter - they have to submit their case reasoning - and more cash for the lawyers

killerandflash said:

Arkwright said:

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 imagine El Kashashy might be paying the bills anyway?

No idea whose paying but someone is - cash up front. 

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. 

ForeverAddickted said:

dickad1 said:

Arkwright said:

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 know

So, they only have to make a credible argument that they have a case for an appeal to effectively secure the injunction they were refused yesterday, during which time the club goes out of business demonstrating why the injunction was refused. 

That would be a proper Charlton way to go under!

Can they do that though, as @killerandflash says just above your post... Its gonna have to be a damned good reason

The Red Robin said:

So, silly question maybe. PE has seven days to appeal. How long does it take for a decision on that appeal? 

castrust said:

https://www.castrust.org/2020/09/judge-pearce-rules-seven-day-injunction/

ForeverAddickted said:

MattF said:

Please please please tell me that judges behave like VAR referee's and do everything possible to overturn their colleagues decisions (is it too late to call Peter Walton to the bar)

We dont want the CoA to overturn the decision though do we

Covered_End_Lad said:

I would imagine PE’s team are going to be playing this tactically, they need to take as much time as possible to submit the appeal but ensure they leave enough time to get a decision before the 7 days.