Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2016 21:21:52 GMT
I.e. you can't accuse a supermarket of not trying hard enough if you were previously accepting of the fact they weren't trying very hard.
I'm struggling to see how it will work in our favour, but I'm keen to learn.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Pasty on Jan 27, 2016 21:30:11 GMT
they did, early doors, though I didn't understand it (which didn't surprise me given that its based on a point of law)......
'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'
Ta. So the newly raised precedent seems to have been discounted. By memory Mrs Proudman referred to lots of precedents, and the legal reports that Finish Gas posted referred to this case reinforcing a general principle. If we didn't argue that they weren't relevant because..., just saying that she hadn't mentioned what the judge called a piece of judicial exuberance to counteract it, oh. Then again, I have no idea what an estoppel is. Maybe that puts an estop to any attempts to terminate a contract! 'Estoppel is a collective name given to a group of legal doctrines in common law legal systems whereby a person is prevented from asserting certain matters before the court to prevent injustice - the person is said to be "estopped".' Pinched straight from Google. Maybe it's something to do with the original judge ruling that the Sainsbury's internal e-mails were inadmissible. 'Estoppel - the thinking man's offside rule...'
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jan 27, 2016 21:46:37 GMT
'Estoppel is a collective name given to a group of legal doctrines in common law legal systems whereby a person is prevented from asserting certain matters before the court to prevent injustice - the person is said to be "estopped".' Pinched straight from Google. Maybe it's something to do with the original judge ruling that the Sainsbury's internal e-mails were inadmissible. 'Estoppel - the thinking man's offside rule...' I like that last bit
I think you're on the right lines
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2016 21:48:37 GMT
Ta. So the newly raised precedent seems to have been discounted. By memory Mrs Proudman referred to lots of precedents, and the legal reports that Finish Gas posted referred to this case reinforcing a general principle. If we didn't argue that they weren't relevant because..., just saying that she hadn't mentioned what the judge called a piece of judicial exuberance to counteract it, oh. Then again, I have no idea what an estoppel is. Maybe that puts an estop to any attempts to terminate a contract! 'Estoppel is a collective name given to a group of legal doctrines in common law legal systems whereby a person is prevented from asserting certain matters before the court to prevent injustice - the person is said to be "estopped".' Pinched straight from Google. Maybe it's something to do with the original judge ruling that the Sainsbury's internal e-mails were inadmissible. 'Estoppel - the thinking man's offside rule...' So, someone was (now or previously) not allowed to tell the court something that would unfairly put someone else in a bad light. Have they now been allowed to say it? If so, it doesn't seem to have attracted much attention. It might even be called a damp squib! Can anyone remember what section 73 is? Something's put me in the mood to search for small change down the side of the sofa.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,067
|
Post by Angas on Jan 27, 2016 21:55:44 GMT
Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows applications to be made for permission to develop without complying with a condition(s) previously imposed on a planning permission. The local planning authority can grant such permission unconditionally or subject to different conditions, or they can refuse the application if they decide that the original condition(s) should continue. The original planning permission will continue to subsist whatever the outcome of the application under section 73. Section 73 will not apply if the period in the previous condition limiting the duration within which the development could begin has now expired without the development having begun www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/1app/guidance/guidance_note-application_for_removal_or_variation_of_a_condition.pdf
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2016 21:57:04 GMT
Its not just about portraying people in bad light though, it could be as simple as trying to allege in court something that you'd previously agreed to turn a blind eye to.
Or trying to pretend you didnt know about something that you should have known about based on the information in your possession, like the expiry date on a contract.
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Jan 27, 2016 22:18:55 GMT
Estoppel, admittedly from wikipedia:
If a landlord promises the tenant that he will not exercise his right to terminate a lease, and relying upon that promise the tenant spends money improving the premises, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may prevent the landlord from exercising a right to terminate, even though his promise might not otherwise have been legally binding as a contract.
So this could relate to the situation where Sainsbury's allowed us to spend money on the JR and opening hours appeal, when in fact they had no intention of continuing with the contract. In these cases perhaps they might not be allowed to exercise their right to terminate?
|
|
c4h10
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 476
|
Post by c4h10 on Jan 27, 2016 22:54:00 GMT
Move over, Peter Parker, I'm coming over to your side of the fence. I accused you earlier of unnecessary pessimism, but having the three-day case concluded in less than two, and with no mention of any new evidence on our behalf, my half-full glass has become half empty. Stadium - schmadium.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jan 27, 2016 23:32:05 GMT
As the case has now concluded, I am now in a position to confirm that NH told me before the Supporters Club AGM Q & A that this was dealt with on a "no win no fee basis".
He asked me not to put this on any social media, I assume he was concerned that may impact on the case - don't ask me why.
This of course applies to our Solicitors fees and NOT our Barristers fees.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jan 27, 2016 23:38:03 GMT
As the case has now concluded, I am now in a position to confirm that NH told me before the Supporters Club AGM Q & A that this was dealt with on a "no win no fee basis". He asked me not to put this on any social media, I assume he was concerned that may impact on the case - don't ask me why. This of course applies to our Solicitors fees and NOT our Barristers fees. could it not apply to barristers also?
solicitors appear to be putting their money where their mouth is. Don't know if that's out of fear of embarrassment/reputational damage locally, or that they reckon the odds are worth taking, or maybe something else, but I can only see it as overall a positive
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jan 27, 2016 23:40:12 GMT
As the case has now concluded, I am now in a position to confirm that NH told me before the Supporters Club AGM Q & A that this was dealt with on a "no win no fee basis". He asked me not to put this on any social media, I assume he was concerned that may impact on the case - don't ask me why. This of course applies to our Solicitors fees and NOT our Barristers fees. could it not apply to barristers also?
solicitors appear to be putting their money where their mouth is. Don't know if that's out of fear of embarrassment/reputational damage locally, or that they reckon the odds are worth taking, or maybe something else, but I can only see it as overall a positive
or, maybe, somebody obtained funding to insure the fees, so that 'own side costs' or 'own side and adverse costs' weren't at risk?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 0:13:41 GMT
I.e. you can't accuse a supermarket of not trying hard enough if you were previously accepting of the fact they weren't trying very hard. I'm struggling to see how it will work in our favour, but I'm keen to learn. Exactly. if I understand what's happened, we saw (and presumably approved) the failed application for extended hours.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 1:40:55 GMT
As the case has now concluded, I am now in a position to confirm that NH told me before the Supporters Club AGM Q & A that this was dealt with on a "no win no fee basis". He asked me not to put this on any social media, I assume he was concerned that may impact on the case - don't ask me why. This of course applies to our Solicitors fees and NOT our Barristers fees. What about Sainsbury's costs, have they not put a charge on The Mem to secure those? Do you think the no win no fee agreement was agreed on in exchange for Higgs & co not suing their own solicitors which had been suggested by at least two of the current board?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 1:41:54 GMT
Didn't the damp squid smiley appear following a slip of the tongue by Ken Masters?
Whatever happened to him?
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Jan 28, 2016 4:10:11 GMT
Didn't the damp squid smiley appear following a slip of the tongue by Ken Masters?
Whatever happened to him?Perhaps he's still packing up his belongings to move nearer to Bristol ?
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Jan 28, 2016 4:12:50 GMT
From www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/damp-squib.html Damp squib
Meaning
Something that fails ignominiously to satisfy expectations; an anti-climax, a disappointment.
Origin
The first thing to say about the expression 'damp squib' is that it is 'squib', not 'squid'. Squid are a species of cephalopod. In their natural environment squid are usually damp but that's as near to this phrase as they are likely to get. Having mentioned squid I ought also to get the other notable squiddish play on words out of the way - the old joke "Hey, where's that sick squid you owe me?". Having done our linguistic duty with squid, we can now move on to 'damp squib'.
A squib is a form of firework, usually cylindrical in shape with a paper fuse at one end, which provides a mild explosion - think 'dynamite lite'. Clearly, fireworks work best when they are dry. Anyone who, at a backyard bonfire, has lit the blue touch paper and retired only to see the firework phut and fizzle out will know the disappointment of a damp squib.
In the 16th century, 'squibs' were also short, sharp literary compositions of a satirical or sarcastic character. Both the 'firework' meaning and the 'satire' meaning are first found in print in the 1520s and it isn't entirely clear which came first.
The first use that I can find of the expression being used figuratively certainly derives from the 'firework' meaning. That is in the London newspaper The Morning Post, March 1837, in a complimentary article about the British parliamentarian George Grote:
Mr. Grote is a nice man. We rather like Mr. Grote. Mr. Grote does not vote black white; or fiz and splutter, after the fashion of a damp squib.
'Squib' isn't a word that we find ourselves using very often, hence the erroneous 'damp squid' isn't difficult to find in print, for example, this piece from the Trinidad & Tobago Express, June 2005:
I imagine the excitement will last for another few weeks before it peters out into a damp squid...
Far out ! I'd thought for one moment Basel had returned
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Jan 28, 2016 4:17:49 GMT
Ta. So the newly raised precedent seems to have been discounted. By memory Mrs Proudman referred to lots of precedents, and the legal reports that Finish Gas posted referred to this case reinforcing a general principle. If we didn't argue that they weren't relevant because..., just saying that she hadn't mentioned what the judge called a piece of judicial exuberance to counteract it, oh. Then again, I have no idea what an estoppel is. Maybe that puts an estop to any attempts to terminate a contract! 'Estoppel is a collective name given to a group of legal doctrines in common law legal systems whereby a person is prevented from asserting certain matters before the court to prevent injustice - the person is said to be "estopped".' Pinched straight from Google. Maybe it's something to do with the original judge ruling that the Sainsbury's internal e-mails were inadmissible. 'Estoppel - the thinking man's offside rule...' So is that something positive in our favour, or am I/we grasping at straws again......God how many pages will this reach until the end of March....still at least we're at the right end of the table and won't be fighting a relegation battle, at the worst be could be just experiencing mid table obscurity
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Jan 28, 2016 7:17:32 GMT
It does seem that either a) they felt the evidence put forward was enough for them to make a decision B) the original cases judgment was correct and they felt no need to hear more. It is a bit more than odd though but maybe it saves some costs To be fair, the original expectation was '2 or 3 days'. So, they put aside 3 days' but rattled it off in 2. My problem is that I was still waiting for them to get to why Mrs Proudman was wrong, on legal grounds, once they'd done with going over old ground and saying how they felt hard done by. Maybe they did but it hasn't been well reported. It could be that there wasn't much of a case to raise or answer, or that it was all pretty clear cut. Who knows?The old forum had a damp squib / squid smiley. That would sum up my reaction. Or maybe the 3 judges could see she was wrong from the get go and called the proceedings to an end
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jan 28, 2016 8:17:43 GMT
To be fair, the original expectation was '2 or 3 days'. So, they put aside 3 days' but rattled it off in 2. My problem is that I was still waiting for them to get to why Mrs Proudman was wrong, on legal grounds, once they'd done with going over old ground and saying how they felt hard done by. Maybe they did but it hasn't been well reported. It could be that there wasn't much of a case to raise or answer, or that it was all pretty clear cut. Who knows?The old forum had a damp squib / squid smiley. That would sum up my reaction. Or maybe the 3 judges could see she was wrong from the get go and called the proceedings to an end I'm only assuming that Sainsbury's felt/didn't have to do much arguing in defence of the original verdict or rebuttal of any claims we made and that's why it finished early, especially when one Judge seems to have rubbished a precedent we tried to bring into play
Oh well back to sleep for a few weeks, til the sh*t hits the fan(s)
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Jan 28, 2016 8:51:28 GMT
Estoppel, admittedly from wikipedia: If a landlord promises the tenant that he will not exercise his right to terminate a lease, and relying upon that promise the tenant spends money improving the premises, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may prevent the landlord from exercising a right to terminate, even though his promise might not otherwise have been legally binding as a contract. So this could relate to the situation where Sainsbury's allowed us to spend money on the JR and opening hours appeal, when in fact they had no intention of continuing with the contract. In these cases perhaps they might not be allowed to exercise their right to terminate?
I like this.
|
|