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
-
Judges cannot just draw inferences like that. They need to be presented with the facts in evidence. Woefully short in that respect on both sides. Respective counsel are almost running these proceedings without much to back them up.golfaddick said:
As I said before - 2 old farts who don't live in the real world.stoneroses19 said:I’m confused why the judge is saying this is the first he’s heard of any liabilities due to the club purchase. Surely he realises the club and its full content isn’t actually only worth a pound.4 -
My opinion, first game 1-0 pm, this game 3-3
Pm should progress2 -
Chaisty again bringing up the issues with the lack of clarity around the current status with a third party attempting to buy the club. #cafc0
-
randy andy said:
LK is 100% right there. It was and is pure conjecture on LD's part that they won't be able to get damages from PM. They may be right, but they have offered no evidence of any kind other than PM has no assets, which is also true of LD, so if they argue they won't be able to get damages from PM they are equally arguing that PM won't be able to get any damages from LD should the case go the other way.Covered End said:
Seeing as they are both crooks, I would say it is highly likely both will continue to act as crooks do.0 -
"Chaisty said undue consideration was given to Charlton Athletic"
And this is the QC for Elliottttt, who claims to be committed to CAFC for footballing reasons.
16 -
Chaisty dismissive of Mihail's evidence. Says LK cant get over MM's silence about state of play of negotiations and actual position that it is in with third party. LD only produced press reports to request short term relief in respect of this appeal.0
-
You can't over turn JP decision based on no real evidence to do soISawLeaburnScore said:
Judges cannot just draw inferences like that. They need to be presented with the facts in evidence. Woefully short in that respect on both sides. Respective counsel are almost running these proceedings without much to back them up.golfaddick said:
As I said before - 2 old farts who don't live in the real world.stoneroses19 said:I’m confused why the judge is saying this is the first he’s heard of any liabilities due to the club purchase. Surely he realises the club and its full content isn’t actually only worth a pound.
I will be gob smacked if his decision is overturned0 -
I'm been researching precedents over the last couple of days and I really can't see how LD have done enough to overturn the decision. Just my guy though.1
-
He will no doubt bang on and on again.
Chaisty has won by a country mile with the far more complete evidence & correct evidence, but what will the judges decide?0 -
I’m totally shagged and not in the I’ve just been savaged by a lithe horsey girl way. Is there going to be some sort of outcome I’m the next while or can I go to bed ?2
- Sponsored links:
-
Does he not know what an Non Disclosure Agreement is?i_b_b_o_r_g said:Chaisty again bringing up the issues with the lack of clarity around the current status with a third party attempting to buy the club. #cafc0 -
Chaisty says injunction should be granted until trial or until further order. LJ Lewison says that's standard wording anyway.0
-
Like Chaisty asking the Judge to google stuff mid-hearing?Covered End said:4 -
0
-
I haven't a clue what is going on but knowing this is Charlton I fear it won't end well.
It never does (apart from Wembley 2019).5 -
Both sides being crap isn't as bad as it initially seems IF it means that essentially the CoA has no real basis to change the initial judgment either way.1
-
You know how some clubs have quotes from famous managers plastered around their stadiums?
If TS finally takes over we should put up the best quotes from this thread.4 -
I wouldn’t be this nervous of a court outcome if I was up for murder 🤪6
- Sponsored links:
-
I hope LK can respond with his mid case googling bullshit2
-
I'm not sure he has. The onus was on him showing Judge Pearce made an error. I can't see how he has done that, It is different to the original hearing in that respect. A decision was made by a judge. Not agreeing with it isn't enough. How was it wrong?
3 -
Chaisty says PM haven't previously challenged that Elliott has £12m in assets or that the £500,000 put in was his money. Unreasonable to do so now.0
-
Go to bed now and you’ll be waking up to 2,500 posts on this thread.KiwiValley said:I’m totally shagged and not in the I’ve just been savaged by a lithe horsey girl way. Is there going to be some sort of outcome I’m the next while or can I go to bed ?4 -
Court adjourning and resuming at 2pm.1
-
FFS0
This discussion has been closed.
