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
-
Judge taking piss out of Johnson nowhudson-son-son said:Oh god not the oven ready deal1 -
Sorry -Rick EverittLK quoting Elliott's own evidence aboutagainst Chaisty's claim there is no evidence of imminent takeover, including tweets fromand12:47 PM · Sep 17, 2020·Twitter Web App0
-
Why not? Nothing really concerning from what I can tellWSS said:My gut feeling is not a good one.2 -
Using their own evidence against them. I like it.8
-
LJ Males asks why court is forced to rely on "rather unreliable" evidence from journalists and not from the respondent.1
-
At least it wasn't described as a world class takeover!hudson-son-son said:Oh god not the oven ready deal3 -
LJ Males asking why we have to rely on tweets and press releases instead of Kreamer’s client just telling us the situation of a takeover. Kreamer says confidentiality is the reason for that. #cafc2
-
Excellent question. Does seem strange to mei_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Males asks why court is forced to rely on "rather unreliable" evidence from journalists and not from the respondent.1 - Sponsored links:
-
Oh so its alright for Chaisty to use it against Pearce then but not for us to use it today then!!i_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Males asks why court is forced to rely on "rather unreliable" evidence from journalists and not from the respondent.2 -
Couldn't or wouldn't?KentishAddick said:
It's a shame PM couldn't provide their own evidence that a deal with TS is close to being completed. Why are they relying on evidence from PE to support their claim?Covered End said:1 -
Get in...!!!i_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Lewison asks about liberty to vary any injunction if PK was "oven-ready" deal on table. LK says court already has evidence from Elliott on this point about press releases showing Thomas Sandgaard's intention to take over ESI.0 -
Confused now, was this "unreliable evidence" not used by LD in the last hearing to get the 7 day injunction granted3
-
I agree, why is our evidence Sky Sports conjecture?
We will be quoting Alan Nixon in a minute.3 -
I hope Cawley sues the judge!i_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Males asks why court is forced to rely on "rather unreliable" evidence from journalists and not from the respondent.8 -
I hope Lauren also mentions the sum put into escrow by TS.4
-
LJ Lewison says Mihail doesn't say in his evidence that there is a buyer, just that talks are ongoing. LK says that confidentiality at play.0
-
Why not mention the money Thomas has put into an account, to show proof of funds?2
- Sponsored links:
-
Exactly my thoughts.MattF said:Confused now, was this "unreliable evidence" not used by LD in the last hearing to get the 7 day injunction granted
0 -
Have LD messed up here? They’ve included evidence of TS interest in buying us in there own documents, whereas PM haven’t.Covered End said:So now the fact TS is ready to buy us can be mentioned as evidence today.Or have I read that incorrectly?0 -
WSS said:My gut feeling is not a good one.
No one's gut feeling was good after the Naby and Dillon horror OG at Wembley.
Just let this play out and hope that we get a positive result.3 -
Going to be bringing Jim White out to the witness box next.Covered End said:
I agree, why is our evidence Sky Sports conjecture?17 -
LK: Injunction was sought on basis that sale was imminent, but applicant then seeks to say that there is no evidence for it. Trying to have it both ways.31
-
I genuinely don't understand why PM didn't put forward a statement from either MM or TS saying they're in negotiations and a deal is close/agreed. The confidentiality argument is bs as the statement wouldn't have to go into detail about the deal.5
-
If the value of the evidence has been downgraded I will be fuuuuumingForeverAddickted said:
Oh so its alright for Chaisty to use it against Pearce then but not for us to use it today then!!i_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Males asks why court is forced to rely on "rather unreliable" evidence from journalists and not from the respondent.
I guess you could look at it as Chaisty HAD to use that as no one at the club would help him, but here representing MM we could have given more substantive evidence. But that would be immensely frustrating.2 -
Oh dear......"rather unreliable evedence from journalists". Crawley & Airman wont be happy...🙂i_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Males asks why court is forced to rely on "rather unreliable" evidence from journalists and not from the respondent.2
This discussion has been closed.
