|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 17, 2015 8:41:25 GMT
i still think 7 days before it goes to court this will be settled.....either way the added on court costs will be huge and neither side will want that !! I might disagree with there mate unless I'm missing something, I don't see how this will be settled 7 days before because that would mean Sainsburys would have to have accepted liability which would technically would be an admittion that they were in breach of contract and if they haven't done it now why would they then change their mind , they must think they have a case and any deviation away from this wouldn't bode well with the judge and thus he would I'd have thought award the full amount . Again I'm no legal expert as most on here seem to be ? That's when the vast majority of litigated cases are settled, as the parties then don't have to incurr the costs of a week long trial. However, if both parties feel they have a strong case then this one maybe the minority which go all the way to a trial.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2015 12:19:23 GMT
I might disagree with there mate unless I'm missing something, I don't see how this will be settled 7 days before because that would mean Sainsburys would have to have accepted liability which would technically would be an admittion that they were in breach of contract and if they haven't done it now why would they then change their mind , they must think they have a case and any deviation away from this wouldn't bode well with the judge and thus he would I'd have thought award the full amount . Again I'm no legal expert as most on here seem to be ? That's when the vast majority of litigated cases are settled, as the parties then don't have to incurr the costs of a week long trial. However, if both parties feel they have a strong case then this one maybe the minority which go all the way to a trial. Will the court case last for a week,or is that a time frame for when the hearing must start. It just seems a week is a long time for this to take,anyone know the usual length of these cases
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on Feb 17, 2015 20:50:30 GMT
at the risk of sounding "fick" what is an onerous disclosure ? Disclosure is the stage in litigation where each party has to disclose to the other party all of the documents they have in their possession or control that are relevant to the issues in the case, and aren't subject to some sort of legal privilege. This will include letters, reports, notes of meetings and phone calls, planning applications, draft documents that never were used, text messages and interviews with media and so on. These days e-disclosure is the norm with the parties expected to carry out word searches to produce all relevant documents. Those documents then have to be listed and someone with relevant authority within the company has to sign a statement of truth saying they understand their disclosure obligations and have carried out an appropriate search. Each party then has the right to copies of all documents disclosed. It's a bit of a dry-sounding exercise but actually is of enormous significance in litigation and can often lead to pre-trial fighting where one party alleges that the other has not complied with their obligations and a judge might then order specific disclosure or threaten to throw a case out if the party in default doesn't get their act together and provide proper disclosure. For example if there is a open (as opposed to without prejudice) letter from BRFC to Sainsbury's asking them when they were going to complete then this would have to be disclosed by both sides. If Sainsbury's made a copy and the Chief Exec scribbled 'never!' on it in green crayon, this would also have to be disclosed. Both sides have to go through this exercise. If the disclosure that has been ordered by the judge is being described as 'onerous' this suggests it's at the top end of the disclosure obligations, and will require a lot of time and resource to be put behind it. For the avoidance of doubt it's not a reference to the onerous conditions that are apparently referred to in the contract. A great summary above. Previous submissions indicate that the Regional Development Manager at Sainsbury's appears to have been a key participant in negotiations. Apparently he has now moved on to Hammerson. This raises the issue of whether the absence of a main participant might have some impact on disclosure - letters, reports, notes of meetings and phone calls?
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Feb 17, 2015 21:03:20 GMT
Disclosure is the stage in litigation where each party has to disclose to the other party all of the documents they have in their possession or control that are relevant to the issues in the case, and aren't subject to some sort of legal privilege. This will include letters, reports, notes of meetings and phone calls, planning applications, draft documents that never were used, text messages and interviews with media and so on. These days e-disclosure is the norm with the parties expected to carry out word searches to produce all relevant documents. Those documents then have to be listed and someone with relevant authority within the company has to sign a statement of truth saying they understand their disclosure obligations and have carried out an appropriate search. Each party then has the right to copies of all documents disclosed. It's a bit of a dry-sounding exercise but actually is of enormous significance in litigation and can often lead to pre-trial fighting where one party alleges that the other has not complied with their obligations and a judge might then order specific disclosure or threaten to throw a case out if the party in default doesn't get their act together and provide proper disclosure. For example if there is a open (as opposed to without prejudice) letter from BRFC to Sainsbury's asking them when they were going to complete then this would have to be disclosed by both sides. If Sainsbury's made a copy and the Chief Exec scribbled 'never!' on it in green crayon, this would also have to be disclosed. Both sides have to go through this exercise. If the disclosure that has been ordered by the judge is being described as 'onerous' this suggests it's at the top end of the disclosure obligations, and will require a lot of time and resource to be put behind it. For the avoidance of doubt it's not a reference to the onerous conditions that are apparently referred to in the contract. A great summary above. Previous submissions indicate that the Regional Development Manager at Sainsbury's appears to have been a key participant in negotiations. Apparently he has now moved on to Hammerson. This raises the issue of whether the absence of a main participant might have some impact on disclosure - letters, reports, notes of meetings and phone calls? Should be just the guy then to develop a super monstrosity on the Mem site when Sainsburys sell it on. Should upset TRASH quite nicely and we should give it our full support!
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 17, 2015 22:48:32 GMT
Disclosure is the stage in litigation where each party has to disclose to the other party all of the documents they have in their possession or control that are relevant to the issues in the case, and aren't subject to some sort of legal privilege. This will include letters, reports, notes of meetings and phone calls, planning applications, draft documents that never were used, text messages and interviews with media and so on. These days e-disclosure is the norm with the parties expected to carry out word searches to produce all relevant documents. Those documents then have to be listed and someone with relevant authority within the company has to sign a statement of truth saying they understand their disclosure obligations and have carried out an appropriate search. Each party then has the right to copies of all documents disclosed. It's a bit of a dry-sounding exercise but actually is of enormous significance in litigation and can often lead to pre-trial fighting where one party alleges that the other has not complied with their obligations and a judge might then order specific disclosure or threaten to throw a case out if the party in default doesn't get their act together and provide proper disclosure. For example if there is a open (as opposed to without prejudice) letter from BRFC to Sainsbury's asking them when they were going to complete then this would have to be disclosed by both sides. If Sainsbury's made a copy and the Chief Exec scribbled 'never!' on it in green crayon, this would also have to be disclosed. Both sides have to go through this exercise. If the disclosure that has been ordered by the judge is being described as 'onerous' this suggests it's at the top end of the disclosure obligations, and will require a lot of time and resource to be put behind it. For the avoidance of doubt it's not a reference to the onerous conditions that are apparently referred to in the contract. A great summary above. Previous submissions indicate that the Regional Development Manager at Sainsbury's appears to have been a key participant in negotiations. Apparently he has now moved on to Hammerson. This raises the issue of whether the absence of a main participant might have some impact on disclosure - letters, reports, notes of meetings and phone calls? Is that good or bad from our prospective? Whilst it may make things difficult it could be handy for Sainsbury's if they blame him/her for vital documents which seem to be conveniently missing?
|
|
|
Post by badbloodash on Feb 17, 2015 23:06:23 GMT
I might disagree with there mate unless I'm missing something, I don't see how this will be settled 7 days before because that would mean Sainsburys would have to have accepted liability which would technically would be an admittion that they were in breach of contract and if they haven't done it now why would they then change their mind , they must think they have a case and any deviation away from this wouldn't bode well with the judge and thus he would I'd have thought award the full amount . Again I'm no legal expert as most on here seem to be ? That's when the vast majority of litigated cases are settled, as the parties then don't have to incurr the costs of a week long trial. However, if both parties feel they have a strong case then this one maybe the minority which go all the way to a trial. This seems to me that the courts are not being used at least 50 % of the time as if everyone is pulling out with 7 days to go there is no way you schedule in a new case what a tragic waste of public funds
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 18, 2015 19:50:38 GMT
I assume they are set up/scheduled on the basis most cases will settled pre trial, which saves the Justice system far more than an idle court room, hence why the legal system is set up to encourage pre trial settlements.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,155
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Feb 19, 2015 15:07:35 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 15:11:09 GMT
Cribbs causeway - about 4 miles away at a guess
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Feb 19, 2015 15:24:57 GMT
Cribbs causeway - about 4 miles away at a guess Filton Abbeywood is nearer
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 15:36:40 GMT
Cribbs causeway - about 4 miles away at a guess Filton Abbeywood is nearer Not very big though compared to Cribbs
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Feb 19, 2015 17:53:01 GMT
Filton Abbeywood is nearer Not very big though compared to Cribbs That was not the question
|
|
|
Post by manorfarmgas on Feb 19, 2015 19:00:50 GMT
A bit off topic, so apologies, but got to make a point about TRASH etc. People seem to wishing all sort of sh*t on Horfield, for having harboured people who had the temerity to be unhappy about an unnecessarily jumbo supermarket being plonked there. We can bitch all we want about TRASH but it's worth bearing in mind that (i) a lot of season ticket holders are local (a good number, myself included, living on the Manor Farm estate); (ii) we have been at the Mem a fair old time, long enough that many regular supporters - the kind that turn up to watch the team - have only known the Mem as the home of Rovers (including my young son); and (iii) the areas near the Mem are overwhelmingly full of normal working people, contrary to the comments about hippies and 'government funded artists' etc. This is Filton Ave, Muller Rd, Manor Farm, and fringes of the Mead we are talking about. Yes, Bishopston and (to a lesser extent) Ashley Down have an unhealthy contingent of smug London transplants and breadheads (no hippies that I have come across), but that's only a small part of the environs of the Mem. Horfield does not equal TRASH. Judging from previous comments in this and other threads, I acknowledge that I'm ploughing a lonely furrow here (my brother in St George is always on about the area around the Mem being full of knobs), but feel better getting that off my chest.
|
|
bs5
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 456
|
Post by bs5 on Feb 19, 2015 19:01:13 GMT
Filton Abbeywood is nearer Not very big though compared to Cribbs Big enough and still a SUPERMARKET
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Feb 19, 2015 19:50:22 GMT
Judging from previous comments in this and other threads, I acknowledge that I'm ploughing a lonely furrow here (my brother in St George is always on about the area around the Mem being full of knobs), I live in Horfield, and I have a beard*, and I own a pair of sandals. *To be fair, I only grew it after Sincs arrived.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Feb 20, 2015 2:44:22 GMT
A bit off topic, so apologies, but got to make a point about TRASH etc. People seem to wishing all sort of sh*t on Horfield, for having harboured people who had the temerity to be unhappy about an unnecessarily jumbo supermarket being plonked there. We can bitch all we want about TRASH but it's worth bearing in mind that (i) a lot of season ticket holders are local (a good number, myself included, living on the Manor Farm estate); (ii) we have been at the Mem a fair old time, long enough that many regular supporters - the kind that turn up to watch the team - have only known the Mem as the home of Rovers (including my young son); and (iii) the areas near the Mem are overwhelmingly full of normal working people, contrary to the comments about hippies and 'government funded artists' etc. This is Filton Ave, Muller Rd, Manor Farm, and fringes of the Mead we are talking about. Yes, Bishopston and (to a lesser extent) Ashley Down have an unhealthy contingent of smug London transplants and breadheads (no hippies that I have come across), but that's only a small part of the environs of the Mem. Horfield does not equal TRASH. Judging from previous comments in this and other threads, I acknowledge that I'm ploughing a lonely furrow here (my brother in St George is always on about the area around the Mem being full of knobs), but feel better getting that off my chest. Lol....post of the season
|
|