Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 9:19:17 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. Hmmm. Wasn't there something in the (July 2014) writ about there being a few onerous conditions that weren't met, not just the delivery hours one, but Sainsbury's had said they would turn a 'blind eye' to them? For someone who thinks we're speculating fruitlessly, based on too little information, I ought to go and do something else. We should know round about Eastertide. Daffodils, chocolate, lambs, jumpers for goalposts, promotion run-in ... Unless some of the press corps stretch to telling us what the case was. Didn't someone say Ali Durden was there? He's usually quite good. What did he say?
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jan 28, 2016 10:04:57 GMT
|
|
sharkey
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 71
|
Post by sharkey on Jan 28, 2016 11:05:39 GMT
You can appeal to have the case heard again by the CoA (usually provided with an immediate "no") and then the Supreme Court. At that stage, you should be looking to employ a QC. Supreme Court hearings are usually heard a further year later if they agree that the case is large enough and/or in the general public interest. Am I not right that we brought new evidence to the table, but Sainsburys did not? Our barrister spoke for a lengthy period, their barrister did not. It is possible that their barrister simply had nothing further to add, hence it was only a 2 day hearing. Normally the party that lost the case initially would do most of the talking as they are trying to persuade the CoA to change the decision. I do not buy this sympathy vote approach that some are suggesting. If we lost on one point and there is evidence that we can now rely on, isn't it worth an appeal? The costs associated with this case will not increase significantly as most evidence and work would have been obtained/done by the time of the original court case.
|
|
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 11:45:00 GMT
You can appeal to have the case heard again by the CoA (usually provided with an immediate "no") and then the Supreme Court. At that stage, you should be looking to employ a QC. Supreme Court hearings are usually heard a further year later if they agree that the case is large enough and/or in the general public interest. Am I not right that we brought new evidence to the table, but Sainsburys did not? Our barrister spoke for a lengthy period, their barrister did not. It is possible that their barrister simply had nothing further to add, hence it was only a 2 day hearing. Normally the party that lost the case initially would do most of the talking as they are trying to persuade the CoA to change the decision. I do not buy this sympathy vote approach that some are suggesting. If we lost on one point and there is evidence that we can now rely on, isn't it worth an appeal? The costs associated with this case will not increase significantly as most evidence and work would have been obtained/done by the time of the original court case. No one seems to know 9or want to say) if we were allowed 'new' evidence or what this obvious error was.
We do seem to have brought up some precedent as part of our case, which appears to have been rubbished by at least one judge from the very limited reporting
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 11:48:52 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? It's all dragged on so long now I'm totally lost about what happened when. I thought that Sainsbury's we're dealing with PP for their new store and we only started spending our own money on it after they had told Higgs that they didn't intend completing the purchase?
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Jan 28, 2016 13:45:40 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? It's all dragged on so long now I'm totally lost about what happened when. I thought that Sainsbury's we're dealing with PP for their new store and we only started spending our own money on it after they had told Higgs that they didn't intend completing the purchase? I think we had representation at the JR, so we must have put some into it.
In addition, the contract couldn't successfully complete until we build the UWE stadium, and we had put money into that on the premise that Sainsburys had promised to buy the Mem. Might be convoluted, but the developments are contractually linked. How far this goes is a bit beyond my limited skills though, we're getting into Equity and my scant knowledge is more about Trust law. However, I do know that the Court of Appeal is much more likely to overturn a High Court ruling due to reasons of common law than anything else. Appeal judges' knowledge of it tends to be deeper, and with long careers behind them they tend to be more willing to use it in the interests of justice, age providing perspective and all that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 14:06:16 GMT
It's all dragged on so long now I'm totally lost about what happened when. I thought that Sainsbury's we're dealing with PP for their new store and we only started spending our own money on it after they had told Higgs that they didn't intend completing the purchase? I think we had representation at the JR, so we must have put some into it.
In addition, the contract couldn't successfully complete until we build the UWE stadium, and we had put money into that on the premise that Sainsburys had promised to buy the Mem. Might be convoluted, but the developments are contractually linked. How far this goes is a bit beyond my limited legal knowledge though.
I'm with Bamber on losing track, but the JR was lodged in September 2013, there was a conversation with Sainsbury's about their commitment to the sale in November 2013, the application for amended delivery hours was, I think, December 2013; by February 2014 there was a conversation with Sainsbury's about whether they 'still' intended pulling out; the JR was heard in March 2014 (after which a buoyant Toni Watola announced work should start by the end of May, but that's a different issue). So quite how much Sainsbury's were misleading anyone, and from when, is unclear (and clouded in our perception by the club misleading us). Still, who knows if that's what they were talking about (or not) in court. Or even what they were talking about at all. On the subject of the club misleading us, I wonder the extent to which they fall for their own spin and lose touch with the distinction between what they want to be true and reality (see also 'relegation is not an option'), and maybe that's at the root of some of the wrangles.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,181
|
Post by eppinggas on Jan 28, 2016 14:12:36 GMT
It's all dragged on so long now I'm totally lost about what happened when. I thought that Sainsbury's we're dealing with PP for their new store and we only started spending our own money on it after they had told Higgs that they didn't intend completing the purchase? I think we had representation at the JR, so we must have put some into it.
In addition, the contract couldn't successfully complete until we build the UWE stadium, and we had put money into that on the premise that Sainsburys had promised to buy the Mem. Might be convoluted, but the developments are contractually linked. How far this goes is a bit beyond my limited skills though, we're getting into Equity and my scant knowledge is more about Trust law. However, I do know that the Court of Appeal is much more likely to overturn a High Court ruling due to reasons of common law than anything else. Appeal judges' knowledge of it tends to be deeper, and with long careers behind them they tend to be more willing to use it in the interests of justice, age providing perspective and all that.
Interesting comment from one of the Judges to a spurious point made yesterday (I paraphrase) "well that isn't going to tip the scales one way or the other". Which implies they still have a lot to deliberate before the final verdict. 200+ years of experience on the bench. A lot of talk from Matthias about interpretation of the black line of the contract. Hopefully they will rule for justice over a Byzantine contract deliberately designed for ambiguity. I'm not quite as pessimistic as I was a couple of days ago.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Jan 28, 2016 14:38:35 GMT
I think we had representation at the JR, so we must have put some into it.
In addition, the contract couldn't successfully complete until we build the UWE stadium, and we had put money into that on the premise that Sainsburys had promised to buy the Mem. Might be convoluted, but the developments are contractually linked. How far this goes is a bit beyond my limited legal knowledge though.
I'm with Bamber on losing track, but the JR was lodged in September 2013, there was a conversation with Sainsbury's about their commitment to the sale in November 2013, the application for amended delivery hours was, I think, December 2013; by February 2014 there was a conversation with Sainsbury's about whether they 'still' intended pulling out; the JR was heard in March 2014 (after which a buoyant Toni Watola announced work should start by the end of May, but that's a different issue). So quite how much Sainsbury's were misleading anyone, and from when, is unclear (and clouded in our perception by the club misleading us). Still, who knows if that's what they were talking about (or not) in court. Or even what they were talking about at all. On the subject of the club misleading us, I wonder the extent to which they fall for their own spin and lose touch with the distinction between what they want to be true and reality (see also 'relegation is not an option'), and maybe that's at the root of some of the wrangles. Fair enough, but what about the club putting money into the UWE stadium, for which the Mem purchase was the enabling development, as per contract?
Ah, who knows. Think I'll stick a pin in it til March.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 28, 2016 18:54:11 GMT
I thought we dealt with the JR and Sainsbury's didn't even attend the hearing, which we discussed on here seemed a bit odd at the time.
What's disappointing is that the B Post sent an agency journalist to the Appeal hearing, who only seems to have done half a job. I'd have gone myself and reported back if the B Post had agreed to meet my train fares!
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Jan 28, 2016 19:46:51 GMT
I thought we dealt with the JR and Sainsbury's didn't even attend the hearing, which we discussed on here seemed a bit odd at the time. What's disappointing is that the B Post sent an agency journalist to the Appeal hearing, who only seems to have done half a job. I'd have gone myself and reported back if the B Post had agreed to meet my train fares! I said so at the time that Sainsbury's were conspicuous by their absence and suggested then that showed their level of interest in the development was waning. What we didn't know at the time was that they had already told Rovers they were going to withdraw. Will we ever know what it was our lot spotted immediately was an error by Mrs Proudman that presumably encouraged them to go to appeal, will we ever know what additional information was presented to the Court of Appeal that gave our lot the enthusiasm to go to this next stage ? They don't do a highlights edition that we can listen into is there, perhaps someone will post something on You tube soon and we see and hear the main action
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Jan 28, 2016 21:22:49 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. But, but, the case isn't over! It won't be concluded until the verdict is announced.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jan 29, 2016 0:13:35 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. But, but, the case isn't over! It won't be concluded until the verdict is announced. The case is over as far as the mounting legal fees are concerned.
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Jan 29, 2016 6:46:39 GMT
But, but, the case isn't over! It won't be concluded until the verdict is announced. The case is over as far as the mounting legal fees are concerned. Okay, I was just struggling to understand the timing of you posting this. NH asked you not to put it on any social media; if he'd added "Until after the court hearing." I could understand why you have. Like you, I can't think why this information shouldn't be public knowledge, nor how it would have any impact on the case. But if you're assuming it may impact the case I would have thought it better to wait until the dust settles - after the final verdict.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2016 7:16:52 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. Whilst I don't doubt Mr Higgs said such a thing, I'd be quite surprised if it were true. No win no fee is common in personal injury litigation, for example. where the work is negligible and the potential reward is legislated for in injury claim protocol. I can't imagine for a second it is normal to risk working for nothing in a complicated contractual dispute that drags on for months and in which you've already lost the original case. I'm probably wrong, which is one of the reasons I'm not a solicitor.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jan 29, 2016 8:00:54 GMT
The case is over as far as the mounting legal fees are concerned. Okay, I was just struggling to understand the timing of you posting this. NH asked you not to put it on any social media; if he'd added "Until after the court hearing." I could understand why you have. Like you, I can't think why this information shouldn't be public knowledge, nor how it would have any impact on the case. But if you're assuming it may impact the case I would have thought it better to wait until the dust settles - after the final verdict. We were already told the costs for the appeal were minimal so not sure what difference this information would have made.
Of course if we lose, what cost do you put on time and everything else?
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Jan 29, 2016 8:34:54 GMT
But, but, the case isn't over! It won't be concluded until the verdict is announced. The case is over as far as the mounting legal fees are concerned. But not as far as the Judges verdict is concerned, i maybe wrong but I understand they are not told how a case is funded, releasing such info could potentially prejudice the case hence why I assume NH asked you to keep it quiet.
|
|
|
Post by otleygas on Jan 29, 2016 8:35:18 GMT
Okay, I was just struggling to understand the timing of you posting this. NH asked you not to put it on any social media; if he'd added "Until after the court hearing." I could understand why you have. Like you, I can't think why this information shouldn't be public knowledge, nor how it would have any impact on the case. But if you're assuming it may impact the case I would have thought it better to wait until the dust settles - after the final verdict. We were already told the costs for the appeal were minimal so not sure what difference this information would have made.
Of course if we lose, what cost do you put on time and everything else?
Of course, it could be argued that NH's time being taken up by the court cases has meant he has had less time to focus on the football side of things...so not all a negative cost
|
|
|
Post by tanksfull on Jan 29, 2016 9:50:28 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 It is possible that she could not overturn a precident which is in place but the Appeal Court, being a higher court, can? Therefore she might have been right based upon the law as it stood, but the Appeal Court have the power to change the law if they see fit? It would depend upon in which court the precident was set?
|
|
|
Post by tanksfull on Jan 29, 2016 10:19:39 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. Whilst I don't doubt Mr Higgs said such a thing, I'd be quite surprised if it were true. No win no fee is common in personal injury litigation, for example. where the work is negligible and the potential reward is legislated for in injury claim protocol. I can't imagine for a second it is normal to risk working for nothing in a complicated contractual dispute that drags on for months and in which you've already lost the original case. I'm probably wrong, which is one of the reasons I'm not a solicitor. Let's assume that there is the possibility of a legal precident being overturned and that there are a long line of other cases, waiting in the wings, for the outcome of this case. If they are successful they will have a queue of companies looking to use their services. Why wouldn't you do the first one for nothing?
|
|