|
Post by a more piratey game on Jan 26, 2016 18:13:13 GMT
I was there for about 40 minutes this morning. Here's my take on it while I was there, plus below already C&Pd by PP on another thread
It was, this time, in a proper court building. Old and with lots of shields and statues and vaulted ceilings. The courtroom itself is more prosaic though, and a little bit smaller than the one we had last time. We were in number 75, so there are plenty of them
I nodded at Nick and Toni when I went in (them probably thinking 'who's that bloke?'), and I saw one other Gashead there - a trainee barrister in his 60's who was there for parts of the original case
There were 23 people in the room, including 3 judges and 4 barristers in their matchday kit. There were also lots of people scribbling notes fairly actively - maybe ten of them. Ali Durden was also there. There are microphones all over the room, so best not eat crisps or pass wind or anything as it'll be picked up
Nick looked a bit stressed to me - like I might if I had tens of millions of quid riding on the case. Or he might have stayed overnight and gone for a few scoops with Toni last night
The legalese was unsurprisingly arcane. I think the judges found it pretty nuanced - they looked pretty puzzled some of the time. Our brief, Mr Matthias, was up and taking them through it. At one point one of the judges raised his eyebrows at Mr David Matthias as if to say 'that's a pretty clever point you just made', although maybe also 'that's pretty smarty-pants'
I don't know if Rovers won their application to submit new evidence, but I guess they did as there was talk about 'we knew x but couldn't discuss it as it wasn't part of our case or the other party's'
Our brief said that it was 'an extraordinary case' and that the original judge had cocked it up, though in the nicest possible way. 'In our respectful submission the learned judge was on a frolic of her own.....' 'erred in concluding....', sort of stuff. One precedent was discussed, and one of the judges suggested that the 'learned judge' in that case exhibited 'a piece of judicial exhuberance'
There was a very technical discussion of estoppel and the Section 73 application. The estoppel arguments are apparently all new, or something - they weren't brought in last time
Our briefs said they saw the draft judgement and saw the error immediately. Our position is summarised in some 'post-judgement submissions'
I considered giving them a verse of Irene, which would at least have livened it up a bit, but thought it might not help so I left quietly
Good luck Dave, Nick and Toni
made a "fundamental error" when she refused to hold supermarket giants, Sainsbury's, to the £30 million purchase of Bristol Rovers' Memorial Stadium.
The club says Sainsbury's welched on the deal which was to pave the way for Rovers' move to a state-of-the-art new ground on West of England University's Frenchay campus.
Rovers narrowly lost the argument in the High Court last year, but is now battling to reverse that result at the Court of Appeal.
Opening the case, barrister, David Mathias QC, said: "Bristol Rovers continues its fight to hold Sainsbury's to the sale of the Memorial Stadium"
He insisted that the supermarket chain was "under a continuing obligation" to go through with the deal when it unlawfully pulled out.
The QC said the club had "very nearly succeeded" in winning its case before High Court judge, Mrs Justice Proudman, last year.
It only lost on a fine point of contractual interpretation and Mr Mathias said it would not take much for the club to be "home and dry".
"We say the judge's conclusion was wrong; we ask this court to reverse it and allow the appeal, obliging Sainsbury's to complete the purchase of the Memorial Stadium", he added.
The deal struck in 2011 was supposed to see Sainsbury's plough £30 million into buying the stadium, before leasing it back to the club for a peppercorn.
The plan was that the club would move to the new 21,700-seater ground when it was completed, opening the way for Sainsbury's to build a superstore on the site of the old stadium.
Planning permission was granted, but Sainsbury's pulled out when local councillors refused to allow deliveries to the store before 6am on weekdays.
Sainsbury's has always insisted that the restriction on delivery hours was unacceptable and that it was fully entitled to withdraw from the project.
But club lawyers argue that the supermarket chain got cold feet and seized upon the deliveries issue as an excuse for backing out of the deal.
They say the contract with Sainsbury's is still "on foot" and is asking the court to force the company into meeting its obligations.
In July last year, Mrs Justice Proudman said the "tortuous, laborious and in some respects bad" drafting of the contract lay at the heart of the dispute.
By the summer of 2013 "Sainsbury's desire to terminate the agreement if it lawfully could was plain", she added.
The judge accepted that the company could have done more to engage with local councillors and objectors and to keep the club informed.
But she refused to accept that Sainsbury's had failed to use "due diligence" in trying to persuade councillors to extend the delivery hours.
The attempt to convince them was made "at a politically inexpedient time" and "would have failed in any event", she ruled.
The failure to win an "acceptable" superstore planning consent meant that a "condition precedent" of the contract had not been met.
Sainsbury's, she concluded, was entitled to stand on the letter of the contract and to withdraw from the deal.
Challenging her decision today, Mr Mathias said the club's case all came down to knife-edge timing.
Sainsbury's, he said, was under an obligation to use its best endeavours to secure an acceptable planning permission.
Under the contract, that obligation had continued for 20 days after a termination notice was served.
The QC argued that Sainsbury's was never entitled to terminate the deal and gave up its attempt to "hone" the planning permission too quickly.
The hearing before Lords Justice Laws, McCombe and Floyd continues and is expected to last three days.
Read more: www.bristolpost.co.uk/Judge-fundamental-error-refused-hold-Sainsbury-s/story-28606561-detail/story.html#ixzz3yMB5rMEG Follow us: @bristolpost on Twitter | bristolpost on Facebook
Read more: gasheads.org/thread/3951/plan-appeal-case?page=48#ixzz3yNGe697e
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 26, 2016 18:34:23 GMT
"We knew X" What's X??
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jan 26, 2016 18:35:33 GMT
I'm not sure. Its pretty incomprehensible in there at times
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Jan 26, 2016 18:57:58 GMT
I'm not sure. Its pretty incomprehensible in there at times Makes you wonder how they work out who has won or lost! Or maybe it's just a case of who has the stamina to remain awake until the rest drop by the wayside had won.
|
|
|
Post by DudeLebowski on Jan 26, 2016 19:03:35 GMT
Sounds like the Pistorius trial, both cases having an original judge who doesn't seem to have a scooby and dropped an almighty clanger! Yes, I just compared our £30million new ground court case with that of a high profile murder one! It's got THAT much riding on it
|
|
|
Post by creationblue on Jan 26, 2016 20:06:44 GMT
Thanks for posting, all sounds very promising, but alas I won't get my hopes up until I have a season ticked at the UWE!
UTG
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Jan 26, 2016 20:09:07 GMT
Sounds like the Pistorius trial, both cases having an original judge who doesn't seem to have a scooby and dropped an almighty clanger! Yes, I just compared our £30million new ground court case with that of a high profile murder one! It's got THAT much riding on it Don't overlook this is our Barrister's view on the verdict, no doubt Sainsbury's brief will suggest the verdict was entirely correct and falls into line with previous similar cases.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jan 26, 2016 20:11:21 GMT
So our people spotted the error straight away but the judge who spent weeks deliberating didnt see her error when coming to her conclusion
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2016 20:12:19 GMT
So our people spotted the error straight away but the judge who spent weeks deliberating didnt see her error when coming to her conclusion She did say at the time she might be wrong but didn't think she was.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jan 26, 2016 20:21:52 GMT
So our people spotted the error straight away but the judge who spent weeks deliberating didnt see her error when coming to her conclusion She did say at the time she might be wrong but didn't think she was. What i mean is we say "it was glaringly obvious and we saw it straight away" in a complex disection of the case by the judge. Seems a bit of a superior attitude to me. The sort of thing that got us in the mess in the first place
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Jan 26, 2016 21:02:31 GMT
She did say at the time she might be wrong but didn't think she was. What i mean is we say "it was glaringly obvious and we saw it straight away" in a complex disection of the case by the judge. Seems a bit of a superior attitude to me. The sort of thing that got us in the mess in the first place Nothing new there when it comes to Barristers in a court room!
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Jan 26, 2016 21:19:55 GMT
So our people spotted the error straight away but the judge who spent weeks deliberating didnt see her error when coming to her conclusion So why didn't they pass her a piece of paper saying "Excuse me luv, you've made an error, just saying like" ?!
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Jan 26, 2016 23:09:32 GMT
She did say at the time she might be wrong but didn't think she was. What i mean is we say "it was glaringly obvious and we saw it straight away" in a complex disection of the case by the judge. Seems a bit of a superior attitude to me. The sort of thing that got us in the mess in the first place Our superior attitude led to TRASH and their judicial review? Or are you suggesting it caused a global economic downturn and stronger competition from the German budget food retailers? Either way attitudes are contagious so it seems to me that Higgs needs to seriously consider whether his is worth catching!
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jan 27, 2016 6:51:23 GMT
What i mean is we say "it was glaringly obvious and we saw it straight away" in a complex disection of the case by the judge. Seems a bit of a superior attitude to me. The sort of thing that got us in the mess in the first place Our superior attitude led to TRASH and their judicial review? Or are you suggesting it caused a global economic downturn and stronger competition from the German budget food retailers? Either way attitudes are contagious so it seems to me that Higgs needs to seriously consider whether his is worth catching! Im not saying that. However the narrative fits in with all the bullish, watertight BS attitude we have had about the whole thing. Didnt we hear in the original case, despite our bleating about sainsburys that WE tried to change part of the contract, WE had to sign off on Sainsburys appeal and then WE have tried to argue it wasnt good enough. Maybe you need to be like that in court but our opening gambit that a decision on a complex legal contract with many factors, but the error is as clear as day.doesnt impresse given our own proven failings in the original case I hope our explanation and reasoning is good enough
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 27, 2016 7:11:48 GMT
Surely this is the approach our legal team feel is the correct one having spent their careers in the courts, not the approach taken on NH's instructions/influence?
At the end of the day they've got to convince the 3 Judges Proudman got the originally verdict hopelessly wrong.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jan 27, 2016 8:05:15 GMT
Surely this is the approach our legal team feel is the correct one having spent their careers in the courts, not the approach taken on NH's instructions/influence? At the end of the day they've got to convince the 3 Judges Proudman got the originally verdict hopelessly wrong. Not saying NH has instructed them to approach like that, just that the opening gambit doesn't impress me and just fits in with the way 'we' have painted a picture of the whole saga.
As I say the original case and Judges decision points out we tried to change details of the contract, we had to pass Sainsbury's appeal that we then argue wasn't good enough all the while arguing Sainsbury's didn't act in good faith.
All a bit pot, kettle, black. Talk of fundamental errors when BOTH sides have p*ssed about in the deal seems a bit churlish to me, but then maybe that's how it has to be. Who can bullsh*t the best
I just hope we can prove the judges decision was wrong convincingly
|
|
dido
Predictions League
Peter Aitken
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by dido on Jan 27, 2016 8:35:40 GMT
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Jan 27, 2016 9:14:55 GMT
Our superior attitude led to TRASH and their judicial review? Or are you suggesting it caused a global economic downturn and stronger competition from the German budget food retailers? Either way attitudes are contagious so it seems to me that Higgs needs to seriously consider whether his is worth catching! Im not saying that. However the narrative fits in with all the bullish, watertight BS attitude we have had about the whole thing. Didnt we hear in the original case, despite our bleating about sainsburys that WE tried to change part of the contract, WE had to sign off on Sainsburys appeal and then WE have tried to argue it wasnt good enough. Maybe you need to be like that in court but our opening gambit that a decision on a complex legal contract with many factors, but the error is as clear as day.doesnt impresse given our own proven failings in the original case I hope our explanation and reasoning is good enough Asking to change part of the contact and breaching the contract, are two different things. There's nothing wrong with asking to change a contract, as long as you then follow it if your request is refused.
|
|
|
Post by bttrsblue on Jan 27, 2016 9:41:35 GMT
"One precedent was discussed, and one of the judges suggested that the 'learned judge' in that case exhibited 'a piece of judicial exhuberance' Read more: gasheads.org/post/new/4503#ixzz3yR5y7xceThis to me is the most intriguing bit. Up til now we have had sensationalist headlines that OUR barrister has said the judge was wrong! We need these judges to believe she was wrong, doesn't matter what we think! Out of interest what is the address of the court? May pop down at some point if i get time.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jan 27, 2016 9:51:50 GMT
Im not saying that. However the narrative fits in with all the bullish, watertight BS attitude we have had about the whole thing. Didnt we hear in the original case, despite our bleating about sainsburys that WE tried to change part of the contract, WE had to sign off on Sainsburys appeal and then WE have tried to argue it wasnt good enough. Maybe you need to be like that in court but our opening gambit that a decision on a complex legal contract with many factors, but the error is as clear as day.doesnt impresse given our own proven failings in the original case I hope our explanation and reasoning is good enough Asking to change part of the contact and breaching the contract, are two different things. There's nothing wrong with asking to change a contract, as long as you then follow it if your request is refused.
Of course contracts can be amended, but it’s the whole perception that we are whiter than white and behaved impeccably that grates. The we can do no wrong. The biggest sticking part of the case to me still remains. Sainsbury’s were contractually obliged to make one appeal, no more, no less. We had to approve said appeal. Said appeal failed, Sainsbury’s exercise right to terminate contract as per stipulation. Good faith or not, appeal good enough or not, we okayed it and to argue against that defies logic (or is that too simplistic?) After that we raced to get our own thing done and passed and missed the deadline. A deadline incidentally we agreed to move forward. To me those are two massive own goals, but it was all Sainsbury’s fault obviously
|
|