Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2015 13:51:01 GMT
I think it's bad news. We've got clearance to grind this out for another twelve months and beyond.
Whereas before we thought the contract stood, but Sainsbury's didn't, so we spent a year chasing it; now we think the contract stands, but Sainsbury's don't, and neither does a High Court Judge after discussing it for a week. But we've been allowed to thrash on with the issue, if we like. If we do, and an appeal goes our way, what then? More delay when Sainsbury's query that?
Plus we've now been landed with a bill for a couple of hundred grand from Sainsbury's. This from the matter that was supposed to provide the funds to pay off Wonga.
We're still on a couple of years' worth of slim chance of getting £30 million from Sainsbury's. We also seem to have abandoned all focus on actually funding and building the stadium, let alone running a football club well.
The best hope is that, having gone for all or nothing and got nothing, but been allowed another go and to grind it on, they might seek compromise with Sainsbury's - as might (or might not) have been suggested in the Post the other day. I think that ship's probably sailed, though: we lost a legal examination of this, but are now willing to sell a deal ahead of a re-run? Why would Sainsbury's go for that, especially with a load of similar cases in the wings waiting to see how susceptible they are to nuisance factors?
Correction: the best hope is they stop this nonsense.
|
|
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 14:01:58 GMT
How or what will we use as an.argument to get this heard ASAP?
Given that a decision has already been made that the deal no longer stands....
|
|
|
Post by Connecticut Gas on Jul 31, 2015 14:05:19 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?
No, today's discussion on costs was for the original case. Both lawyers and the judge today reviewed (out loud) the guidance for judges to award costs. The general procedure is that the loser pays costs of winner, although judges are allowed to vary this depending on how the sides conducted their case, and whether the losing side had any sort of partial victory. Rovers lawyer argued that on all important points (except interpretation of a schedule) the judge had found in favour of Rovers and therefore at worst the costs should be split. However the judge ruled that these did not justify deviating from the general rules for judges and awarded the costs in favour of Sainsbury's. No mention of the amount was made - at least not in this section of the proceedings that I attended.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Jul 31, 2015 15:48:55 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.
NH didn't issue a Writ, he threatened to issue one before the delivery hours hearing, as far as I'm aware only Sainsbury's have issued and despite posters pparently in ITK suggested we wouldn't have to pay thier costs it seems Proudlove has lumbered them all with the club. It seems we are getting poor legal advice or NH is ignoring it as the High Court is giving him and so us a financial beating, at this rate we won't have a club let alone a new ground.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Jul 31, 2015 15:52:16 GMT
So we have leave to appeal and have a 'positive case' according to Judge Judy.
Say the appeal is upheld. Can the appeal be appealed?
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Jul 31, 2015 15:58:12 GMT
No need to worry everyone - it's a watertight appeal. Nothing to see here. Move along now.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2015 17:05:45 GMT
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.
NH didn't issue a Writ, he threatened to issue one before the delivery hours hearing, as far as I'm aware only Sainsbury's have issued and despite posters pparently in ITK suggested we wouldn't have to pay thier costs it seems Proudlove has lumbered them all with the club. It seems we are getting poor legal advice or NH is ignoring it as the High Court is giving him and so us a financial beating, at this rate we won't have a club let alone a new ground. www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-Rovers-sue-Sainsbury-s-writ/story-22820147-detail/story.htmlSays there that the writ has been lodged at the High Court in London. Sainsbury's wouldn't have done anything, as far as they were concerned the contract had expired and was filed in the waste paper basket.
|
|