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
-
The fact that PE dodnt provide evidence for money put into the club is telling and LK sone well to assert that. If they are gonna dig out PM for their lacklustre evidence then it must go both ways6
-
i_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Lewison says loss would be calculated on diminution of the value shares rather than lost income to the club. Notes that people don't always buy football clubs to make money.is that good?ive absolutely no idea what this all means yet im avidly following3
-
I still haven't seen anything that really changes judge Pearce decision.
Nothing new here3 -
Rick Everitt·11sLK says the fact that PE puts forward £50k doesn't give her client any comfort that he has the money to cover its damages and even if he was found in contempt that wouldn't assist PM.1
-
Shame they can't force PE to show where his money came from.8
-
Just on lunch break, can't look through 500 posts... Who's winning?
1 - Sponsored links:
-
LK: says very clear that judge weighed very carefully the risk to the interests of PM/CAFC as put forward by MM. Effectively court was dealing with matters that are at the discretion of EFL, necessarily potential scenarios.2
-
Can't see much evidence of goals being scored by either side. Most of Chaisty's evidence seems literally to be speculation and clearly prolonging the ownership of someone who hasn'ts paid for it, and whose cash injection of 500 grand it now turns out has no provenance, While Kreamer has made some worthy attacks but to me hasn'ts actually scored yet.
As an aside, why whould her being a Charlton fan be important, Are we so childish as to believe that Chaisty is being paid by LD, but would happily swap sides if he felt his client was wrong and causing damage, Has that ever happened in a court of law?
2 -
@i_b_b_o_r_g you are doing a great job. I hope you are on time and a half!5
-
They might then want to see where TN money came from.The Red Robin said:Shame they can't force PE to show where his money came from.0 -
LK: court invited to reject proposition that Judge Pearce did not weigh extent to which he found MM's evidence deficient. Clear he did.4
-
Hope the Judges are seeing it that way toomattinfinland said:I still haven't seen anything that really changes judge Pearce decision.
Nothing new here3 -
Again, as I said earlier, it feels good that LK admits the failings of PM, not just going ahead with positives as Chaisty is with LD.Covered End said:1 - Sponsored links:
-
Trying to follow along like...
31 -
Same as......Arsenetatters said:i_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Lewison says loss would be calculated on diminution of the value shares rather than lost income to the club. Notes that people don't always buy football clubs to make money.is that good?ive absolutely no idea what this all means yet im avidly following
Anybody, whats the score please ?1 -
At last. I made this point after the last court appearance.Covered End said:0 -
LK: Nothing in appellant's case on appeal provides evidence that judge was wrong to say that damages would not be adequate remedy for PM if an injunction was wrongly granted.1
-
Kreamer now speaking about the quality of MM’s evidence.Says Judge Pearce already said he was taking MM’s evidence with a “pinch of salt”Says this shows Judge Pearce weighed the value of MM’s evidence alongside other submissions.
An interesting argument, that MM's evidence had already been declared dodgy by Pearce, when he found in Panorama's favour, and thus shouldn't be a factor now!2 -
He'll be getting a week off mod duties.Solidgone said:@i_b_b_o_r_g you are doing a great job. I hope you are on time and a half!
2 -
Thought this was a ballsy statement!i_b_b_o_r_g said:LK: court invited to reject proposition that Judge Pearce did not weigh extent to which he found MM's evidence deficient. Clear he did.1 -
3-3 going into extra timeMiserableoldgit said:
Same as......Arsenetatters said:i_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Lewison says loss would be calculated on diminution of the value shares rather than lost income to the club. Notes that people don't always buy football clubs to make money.is that good?ive absolutely no idea what this all means yet im avidly following
Anybody, whats the score please ?4 -
Me neither but it's all about interpretation. Could go either way imomattinfinland said:I still haven't seen anything that really changes judge Pearce decision.
Nothing new here0
This discussion has been closed.
