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)

1…128129131133134…175

Comments

  • fadgadget
    fadgadget Posts: 1,391
    cafcfan said:
    AdTheAddicK said:
    I thought justice was his first name. Did think Mr justice Arnold was a pretty fitting name for him. Now I'm disappointed. 
    Just to add to the confusion, while he's retired now, there was a guy called Igor Judge who was Lord Chief Justice Judge.
    We also have a Judge Judge who works there .
  • Arsenetatters
    Arsenetatters Posts: 5,974
    I've remembered who PM is.
  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    LJ Lewison says Mihail sets out hypothesis that injunction is granted and LD succeed at trial then ties consequences to that scenario. So to determine whether damages are an adequate for Panorama is that injunction is grated by LD lose at trial.
    1
  • ValleyGary
    ValleyGary Posts: 37,978
    RedRyan said:
    i_b_b_o_r_g said:
    No evidence as to what contract, price or date of completion or identity of third party, says Chaisty. Extremely important if respondent says irremediable damage if injunction granted. No evidence third party would disappear either.
    It’s so ducking annoying. The damage done is to the team - the fact that an injunction prevents transfers - which has a direct impact on value and long term prospects of club - how can this not be seen? An injunction damages the club and therefore the saleability of the club, not least to mention the potential damage administration, exclusion etc would deal to the community. Grr!
    That’s what Lauren put across last time and Pearce agreed.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,993
    Arsenetatters said:
    I can't even remember who PM is
    Panorama Magic.
  • ProperCharlton
    ProperCharlton Posts: 2,254
    Surely PM/CAFC could put evidence in showing how perilous our finances our and to show TS is close to buying us but wants a deal soon or he believes we'll have to enter administration
  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    LJ Lewison says that Judge Pearce's ruling may be based on the wrong hypothesis. Chaisty says that MM assumed that Elliott's disqualification is final ruling, which is false.
  • meldrew66
    meldrew66 Posts: 2,561
    ForeverAddickted said:
    So from what I'm reading... Chaisty is saying that no evidence has been provided by PM of a takeover or negotiations etc.

    BUT he got the seven day injunction whilst they went to appeal because he provided evidence of there being an imminent takeover?

    I know. It's bonkers, isn't it??!! He has changed his stance twice now and yet LD are getting their way because of it. Surely, the judges and Laura C are not missing that point? If he is arguing there is no evidence of imminent takeover, surely that removes the need for the temporary injunction and we are home and free? I bet it doesn't go down that way. It's Charlton, after all!
  • Uboat
    Uboat Posts: 12,195
    The way Lauren gets to go second is very ‘attacking the Covered End in the second half’.  
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,993
  • Sponsored links:



  • kentaddick
    kentaddick Posts: 18,729
    They’re not making any new arguments, so can’t see them succeeding at appeal. The point of an appeal is to overturn a previous judgement based on new evidence. Doesn’t seem to be any.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,993
  • ValleyGary
    ValleyGary Posts: 37,978
    i_b_b_o_r_g said:
    Doomsday scenario disproved by the fact that the club has started the season, says Chaisty. Court left with speculation about potential consequences but with no evidence to form a view as to likelihood.
    If the EFL had failed Elliott again then it would of taken this argument away. 
  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    Elliott pursuing right of appeal with arbitration panel, says Chaisty. EFL disqualification based on misleading evidence provided by Elliott about the SPA. MM's evidence has no foundation because there is an appeal process.
  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    Chaisty says balance of convenience is not based on a risk, but a certainty, that damages claim will be worthless.
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,626
    edited September 2020
    But we've been told that's immaterial. The arguement is about selling ESI, not what is inside it.

    Very frustrating because both sides know what it means to delay things further - no money to pay wages, transfer embargo etc etc.  But the nuance will be lost on the two old farts stiting there.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,993
  • DoctorCharlton
    DoctorCharlton Posts: 2,463
    edited September 2020
    AFKABartram said:
    Very grateful to those relaying updates on here, thanks 

    Indeed, thanks to those for sharing.

    Please can I ask though, any twitter links can we post just a screenshot or the text from the tweet itself?

    Twitter is blocked at work and it's difficult going back to my phone to check the tweet. And it is even more difficult with little signal in the office.

    Thanks again to those that are sharing.

  • RedRyan
    RedRyan Posts: 911
    i_b_b_o_r_g said:
    LJ Lewison says that Judge Pearce's ruling may be based on the wrong hypothesis. Chaisty says that MM assumed that Elliott's disqualification is final ruling, which is false.
    Don’t like this LJ seemingly agreeing with Chaisty
  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    LJ Males says more fundamental point is whether Mihail has given any evidence about what will happen if injunction granted and claim ultimately fails.
  • Sponsored links:



  • RedRyan
    RedRyan Posts: 911
    i_b_b_o_r_g said:
    Elliott pursuing right of appeal with arbitration panel, says Chaisty. EFL disqualification based on misleading evidence provided by Elliott about the SPA. MM's evidence has no foundation because there is an appeal process.
    Efl screw us with their tardiness to resolve PE appeal ffs
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,993
  • Scratchingvalleycat
    Scratchingvalleycat Posts: 759
    edited September 2020
    golfaddick said:
    Redrobo said:
    golfaddick said:
    So, let's get this straight. This is an appeal to overturn Judge Pearce's ruling that an injunction to stop ESI selling its shares to anyone but Paul Elliott is wrong.

    The fact that an injunction is a mechanism to stop something happening, and seeing as the original injunction hearing was 16 days ago, makes ruling against an injunction a farce.

    Me - "stop - you can't sell that its mine"
    Judge "no it's not - sale can proceed"
    Me - " I'll appeal then"
    Judge " you want to appeal, oh that's a different matter then. Stop the sale"

    So, you have a Judge saying you cant stop the sale but appeal that decision & the sale is stopped.


    Bonkers. The law is indeed an ass & I'm a banana. 
    Not quite right. It is a Hearing to decide if there should be an injunction preventing the sale of EIS Ltd until the Hearing in November.
    The Hearing in November will decide if Elliott has the exclusive right to buy.
    My point was an injunction is sought to stop (or delay) something happening. Judge Pearce SIXTEEN days ago ruled against an injunction........but yet a sale hasn't yet happened because an appeal was granted. Therefore an injunction of sorts has already happened. 

    As I said, the law is an ass.


    The injunction wasn't prevented because LD decided that they woul take the case to a higher court as a result ofJudge Pearce refusing the right to appeal in his court. That is and always has been the legal process and sometimes it gets to sort out wrongs, sometimes just delays the inevitable. The right to appeal to a higher court has always been a fundamental of the legal system and rightly so.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,993
  • ForeverAddickted
    ForeverAddickted Posts: 94,318
    RedRyan said:
    i_b_b_o_r_g said:
    LJ Lewison says that Judge Pearce's ruling may be based on the wrong hypothesis. Chaisty says that MM assumed that Elliott's disqualification is final ruling, which is false.
    Don’t like this LJ seemingly agreeing with Chaisty
    Patience!!... On the first day it was a tennis match the way the judge went back and forth
  • Cafc43v3r
    Cafc43v3r Posts: 21,600
    kentaddick said:
    They’re not making any new arguments, so can’t see them succeeding at appeal. The point of an appeal is to overturn a previous judgement based on new evidence. Doesn’t seem to be any.
    No the point of an appeal is that the 1st judge made the wrong judgment on the evidence available.  If its new evidence it would go back as a new injunction application. 
  • NomadicAddick
    NomadicAddick Posts: 2,114
    thanks for the updates so far, sat at my desk refreshing the page whenever my boss isnt looking. Crazy that it has come to this. 
  • The Red Robin
    The Red Robin Posts: 26,126
    Alan Judge causing us some trouble in the early stages. Can't get our own half. 
  • sillav nitram
    sillav nitram Posts: 10,164
    Solidgone said:
    soapboxsam said:
    ValleyGary said:
    How likely are two judges going to overturn a decision already made by a judge? 

    It will be 1-1 which should go in favour of Judge Pearce's original decision.

    I feel really nervous.
    Do away goals count as double?
    I’ve already said that so any LOL automatically transfer to me, don’t do it again!
  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948

    Chaisty quotes Mihail's evidence on the appeal and says that it is simply wrong to say that only club can appeal.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

“Marketplace”