The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jul 31, 2015 11:01:55 GMT
Will the decision be announced today? Who knows.
Who cares
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jul 31, 2015 11:11:57 GMT
Will the decision be announced today? Who knows.
Who cares
Are you there today ?
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jul 31, 2015 11:18:35 GMT
Who knows.
Who cares
Are you there today ? I regret no I am not there.
It's too costly from WSM and as the case can go on until 4pm, I could not get back in time for Kite's testimonial tonight.
And, there is no guarantee that a verdict will be given today. Having said that, as the Courts close tonight for the summer break and do not reopen until October, Mrs Justice Proudman has nine weeks to deliver her verdict as any appeal, if she grants leave to appeal, I assume cannot be organised until the Courts reopen.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jul 31, 2015 11:22:21 GMT
I regret no I am not there.
It's too costly from WSM and as the case can go on until 4pm, I could not get back in time for Kite's testimonial tonight.
And, there is no guarantee that a verdict will be given today. Having said that, as the Courts close tonight for the summer break and do not reopen until October, Mrs Justice Proudman has nine weeks to deliver her verdict as any appeal, if she grants leave to appeal, I assume cannot be organised until the Courts reopen.
Fair play, you did well to be there when the original case was heard. Let's hope we get a decent result
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jul 31, 2015 11:36:07 GMT
I regret no I am not there.
It's too costly from WSM and as the case can go on until 4pm, I could not get back in time for Kite's testimonial tonight.
And, there is no guarantee that a verdict will be given today. Having said that, as the Courts close tonight for the summer break and do not reopen until October, Mrs Justice Proudman has nine weeks to deliver her verdict as any appeal, if she grants leave to appeal, I assume cannot be organised until the Courts reopen.
Fair play, you did well to be there when the original case was heard. Let's hope we get a decent result Just realised after posting that the highlighted comment is rubbish.
Although the Courts close, the administration of the Courts continues so if she grants leave to appeal, our lawyers hopefully will make a speedy request for the appeal to be heard asap.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2015 11:37:49 GMT
Will the decision be announced today? Who knows.
Who cares
A strange reaction from you The Gas. Care to explain?
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jul 31, 2015 11:41:22 GMT
Fair play, you did well to be there when the original case was heard. Let's hope we get a decent result Just realised after posting that the highlighted comment is rubbish.
Although the Courts close, the administration of the Courts continues so if she grants leave to appeal, our lawyers hopefully will make a speedy request for the appeal to be heard asap.
To be honest the whole thing has drained me of a lot of enthusiasm for the club. It seems never ending and the limbo state just does me in. It's been my experience? When younger and very stupid, that courts never work speedily. I just want this to be over, one way or the other, so that I can just get on with supporting the team that with the enthusiasm that I had prior to all of this. It all takes its toll and when coupled with illness then it makes for a heady cocktail. I wish I could do what Marin Bull is doing, not reading the stuff on the net but illness means that I can have long periods where the only information I get is via the net.
|
|
|
Post by Connecticut Gas on Jul 31, 2015 11:56:28 GMT
The judge granted permission today for Rovers to appeal. In fact she stated up front that her original judgment depended on her construction of a very technical clause of a very complicated agreement, and that the court of appeals might very well come to a different conclusion. There were arguments from Sainsbury's lawyer that the appeal courts might not be happy to be troubled with such a case when the appeal had no possibility of success. However the judge was not persuaded by this.
The second issue up for judgement was costs. Rovers lost this one - and have to pay Sainsbury's costs in full. However I suspect payment would be deferred (and could even be reversed) depending on the appeal. Not being a legal eagle I'm not sure.
The third issue today was interim payments. I didn't hang around for that as I wanted to get back to the Test Match.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jul 31, 2015 12:01:06 GMT
The judge granted permission today for Rovers to appeal. In fact she stated up front that her original judgment depended on her construction of a very technical clause of a very complicated agreement, and that the court of appeals might very well come to a different conclusion. There were arguments from Sainsbury's lawyer that the appeal courts might not be happy to be troubled with such a case when the appeal had no possibility of success. However the judge was not persuaded by this. The second issue up for judgement was costs. Rovers lost this one - and have to pay Sainsbury's costs in full. However I suspect payment would be deferred (and could even be reversed) depending on the appeal. Not being a legal eagle I'm not sure. The third issue today was interim payments. I didn't hang around for that as I wanted to get back to the Test Match. Thank you Conneticut, sheesh, that was quick & gives me some hope. The costs, as I understand it, will be adjourned until the process is over. I bet Sainsbury's lawyers will be on a much bigger remuneration package than the team we used. That's worrying
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 31, 2015 12:08:01 GMT
The judge granted permission today for Rovers to appeal. In fact she stated up front that her original judgment depended on her construction of a very technical clause of a very complicated agreement, and that the court of appeals might very well come to a different conclusion. There were arguments from Sainsbury's lawyer that the appeal courts might not be happy to be troubled with such a case when the appeal had no possibility of success. However the judge was not persuaded by this. The second issue up for judgement was costs. Rovers lost this one - and have to pay Sainsbury's costs in full. However I suspect payment would be deferred (and could even be reversed) depending on the appeal. Not being a legal eagle I'm not sure. The third issue today was interim payments. I didn't hang around for that as I wanted to get back to the Test Match. I thought Sainsburys wernt supposed to be present. It was just us and the judge?
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Jul 31, 2015 12:12:01 GMT
Well. So it could be good news or it could be bad. Half a chance is something at least. Don't fancy paying Sainsbury's costs of we lose so we have to hope that doesn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by Connecticut Gas on Jul 31, 2015 12:15:35 GMT
Both the lawyers from the original case were present (with assistants) and each had opportunities to argue and counter-argue each point.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 31, 2015 12:19:04 GMT
"The third issue today was interim payments" I assume that's for Sainsbury's lawyers costs rather than their own claim but thought that would be decdied post the Appeal? It will be interesting to see what how much they were seeking and how much we have to pay now, if anything??
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jul 31, 2015 12:23:53 GMT
Who knows.
Who cares
A strange reaction from you The Gas. Care to explain? Sorry, I was being malevolent, hence the "red card"
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jul 31, 2015 13:00:07 GMT
The judge granted permission today for Rovers to appeal. In fact she stated up front that her original judgment depended on her construction of a very technical clause of a very complicated agreement, and that the court of appeals might very well come to a different conclusion. There were arguments from Sainsbury's lawyer that the appeal courts might not be happy to be troubled with such a case when the appeal had no possibility of success. However the judge was not persuaded by this. The second issue up for judgement was costs. Rovers lost this one - and have to pay Sainsbury's costs in full. However I suspect payment would be deferred (and could even be reversed) depending on the appeal. Not being a legal eagle I'm not sure. The third issue today was interim payments. I didn't hang around for that as I wanted to get back to the Test Match. I assume this is Sainsbury's costs for todays Court action not for the original case.
It would be perverse if we had to pay Sainsbury's cost for the original action when we were DEFENDING an action brought by Sainsbury. Were we expected to roll over and not defend the case?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2015 13:13:58 GMT
The judge granted permission today for Rovers to appeal. In fact she stated up front that her original judgment depended on her construction of a very technical clause of a very complicated agreement, and that the court of appeals might very well come to a different conclusion. There were arguments from Sainsbury's lawyer that the appeal courts might not be happy to be troubled with such a case when the appeal had no possibility of success. However the judge was not persuaded by this. The second issue up for judgement was costs. Rovers lost this one - and have to pay Sainsbury's costs in full. However I suspect payment would be deferred (and could even be reversed) depending on the appeal. Not being a legal eagle I'm not sure. The third issue today was interim payments. I didn't hang around for that as I wanted to get back to the Test Match. I assume this is Sainsbury's costs for todays Court action not for the original case.
It would be perverse if we had to pay Sainsbury's cost for the original action when we were DEFENDING an action brought by Sainsbury. Were we expected to roll over and not defend the case?
There was wording in the verdict in relation to costs after the initial hearing, can't remember the exact wording though.
|
|
toteend
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 305
|
Post by toteend on Jul 31, 2015 13:25:47 GMT
She stated previously that Rovers would be liable to pay a proportion of Sainsburys costs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2015 13:37:13 GMT
It would be perverse if we had to pay Sainsbury's cost for the original action when we were DEFENDING an action brought by Sainsbury.
Had Higgs not issued the writ there would have been no court case.
Expect Sainsbury's to go after all costs they have incurred.
The original decision will be overturned on appeal, but UWE will still never be built, a compromise agreement will be reached, the details will never be made public. People will speculate that Higgs could have achieved a similar settlement a year ago.
All just my opinion of course.
|
|
|
Post by gasheadnaboo on Jul 31, 2015 13:38:11 GMT
Surely any appeal would be for damages only, seems pretty open and shut that the contract had expired?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 31, 2015 13:47:09 GMT
|
|