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…135136138140141…175

Comments

  • Atletico Addick
    Atletico Addick Posts: 5,843
    ForeverAddickted said:
    So just what was LD's case for appeal then? - Other than repeating that Pearce was wrong in denying the injunction?
    In a nutshell that Judge Pearce paid way too much weight to the damages an injuction would cause to the Club & Community. There is no real substance to be honest he's just a good attacking lawyer, I'd be astonished if the judges side with him unless they wholly feel Pearce had the wrong approach entirely.
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,624
    randy andy said:
    golfaddick said:
    i_b_b_o_r_g said:
    Chaisty notes that Pearce said history of the club is something he can take into account. No precedent for taking into account third party interests, he says. Not a public interest case, just parties interested in the outcome.
    That's the case in a nutshell. 

    Doesnt matter about what's owned by ESI (the club) just who owns it.
    Chaisty is surely making an error here. CAFC aren't a third party, they are the primary and only asset of PM. If the judges are forced to ignore the club, then maybe they should ask Chaisty what else about PM it is they want to buy? If the club is such an irrelevance, then what else about PM is so desirable that an injunction against it's sale is necessary?
    This all day long.

    Feel I want to be one of the juniors in the team that you see handing notes to the bigwigs. Someone pass this on to Kreamer theres a good chap.
  • SuedeAdidas
    SuedeAdidas Posts: 7,738
    Stay out of the black,
    And in the red,
    There's nothing in this game,
    For 2 in a bed
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,989
  • meldrew66
    meldrew66 Posts: 2,561
    ISawLeaburnScore said:
    mattinfinland said:
    What does that mean 
    It means an appeal court cannot reopen the entire situation and start again - it is assessing the appropriateness and reasonableness of the original judgment, not the whole matter.

    Yeah but the fact is that the 2 are inextricably linked, aren't they? One led to the other.
  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    LK: evidence of Gallen has been filed and responded to by Elliott, so appellant has had that opportunity. LJ Lewison doesn't want to hear argument on that point.
  • stackitsteve
    stackitsteve Posts: 12,102
    So like VAR? Only clear and obvious errors
  • Garrymanilow
    Garrymanilow Posts: 13,167
    Good line of argument from Lauren. Chaisty is just trying to push that he doesn't like the decision, Lauren is focusing on the fact these judges will need to say that Pearce acted outside of his remit as a judge, which is a pretty high bar. Especially as in my opinion it isn't true
  • stoneroses19
    stoneroses19 Posts: 7,218
    On a side note, I feel sorry for anyone coming to this thread later today, I can’t keep up following it live. 
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,989
  • Sponsored links:



  • buckshee
    buckshee Posts: 7,867

    LK is like a boxer using their jab as a range finder, waiting patiently to let go with a right hand over the top of a gradually lowering guard.

  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    Kreamer says the court of appeals shouldn’t consider the evidence fresh. Should be deciding whether the decision of the lower court was “clearly wrong” #cafc
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,989
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,842
    ForeverAddickted said:
    So just what was LD's case for appeal then? - Other than repeating that Pearce was wrong in denying the injunction?
    Yes basically. 
  • ISawLeaburnScore
    ISawLeaburnScore Posts: 9,779
    meldrew66 said:
    ISawLeaburnScore said:
    mattinfinland said:
    What does that mean 
    It means an appeal court cannot reopen the entire situation and start again - it is assessing the appropriateness and reasonableness of the original judgment, not the whole matter.

    Yeah but the fact is that the 2 are inextricably linked, aren't they? One led to the other.
    Yes and no. You can't start again at appeal. LD lost at first instance on one point. The question is was the decision on that point wrong. Given the point involves a high degree of discretion it is very hard to argue a judge invalidly exercised his discretion unless he clearly and wrongly over-prioritised the importance of some factors and under-prioritised others.
  • Jints
    Jints Posts: 3,490
    stackitsteve said:
    So like VAR? Only clear and obvious errors
    Good way of putting it. Although I'd say the review system in cricket is a better analogy with the unpire/judge allowed some leeway.
  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,347
    So according to the "authorities" (case law?) LK is quoting, the judges can't overrule Pearce unless they feel he overstepped his generous scope of discretion, even if they would have used that discretion differently. 
  • meldrew66
    meldrew66 Posts: 2,561
    i_b_b_o_r_g said:
    Kreamer says the court of appeals shouldn’t consider the evidence fresh. Should be deciding whether the decision of the lower court was “clearly wrong” #cafc

    I just hope these are not 2 pompous elderly, male so-and-so's who won't appreciate being lectured to/at by a young, female barrister.
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,842
    edited September 2020
    stackitsteve said:
    So like VAR? Only clear and obvious errors
    Or umpires call in cricket. Pearce gave Lex out LBW, and as the replay shows the ball flicking the bails, Pearce's decisions stands...

    Ideally anyway
  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    LJ Lewison asking whether damages would be adequate to Panorama Magic if Lex Dominus obtained an injunction but lost the case.
  • Sponsored links:



  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,989
  • Jints
    Jints Posts: 3,490
    Chunes said:
    So according to the "authorities" (case law?) LK is quoting, the judges can't overrule Pearce unless they feel he overstepped his generous scope of discretion, even if they would have used that discretion differently. 
    Yep - authorities are other cases. This point is absolutely standard in the Court of Appeal and is very, very well-established. 
  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    Back to Mihail's evidence about consequences now. LK argues that is valid hypothesis. LJ Lewison says question of law is whether damages would be adequate if claim ultimately fails.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,989
  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    LJ Males doesn't understand how Mihail's evidence could have been compiled before the claim became clear.
  • Pelling1993
    Pelling1993 Posts: 6,672
    killerandflash said:
    stackitsteve said:
    So like VAR? Only clear and obvious errors
    Or umpires call in cricket. Pearce gave Lex out LBW, and as the replay shows the ball flicking the bails, Pearce's decisions stands...

    Ideally anyway
    In that case they would retain their review, we don't want another review!  :#
  • Cafc43v3r
    Cafc43v3r Posts: 21,600
    Jints said:
    stackitsteve said:
    So like VAR? Only clear and obvious errors
    Good way of putting it. Although I'd say the review system in cricket is a better analogy with the unpire/judge allowed some leeway.
    Just hope it's "judges call" when we get to ball tracking then. 
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,989
  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,347
    killerandflash said:
    stackitsteve said:
    So like VAR? Only clear and obvious errors
    Or umpires call in cricket. Pearce gave Lex out LBW, and as the replay shows the ball flicking the bails, Pearce's decisions stands...

    Ideally anyway
    It's a bit like buying a house...
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

“Marketplace”