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
-
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.1
-
I've remembered who PM is.
1 -
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.10
-
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.0
-
Arsenetatters said:I can't even remember who PM is0
-
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 administration0
-
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.0
-
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!1 -
The way Lauren gets to go second is very ‘attacking the Covered End in the second half’.14
- Sponsored links:
-
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.1
-
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.6
-
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.0
-
Chaisty says balance of convenience is not based on a risk, but a certainty, that damages claim will be worthless.0
-
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.1 -
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.
1 -
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.1
-
LJ Males says more fundamental point is whether Mihail has given any evidence about what will happen if injunction granted and claim ultimately fails.0
- Sponsored links:
-
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.0
-
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.
The Hearing in November will decide if Elliott has the exclusive right to buy.
As I said, the law is an ass.1 -
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.1
-
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.2
-
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.0
-
Alan Judge causing us some trouble in the early stages. Can't get our own half.5
-
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.2 -
Chaisty quotes Mihail's evidence on the appeal and says that it is simply wrong to say that only club can appeal.1
This discussion has been closed.