|
Post by billyocean on May 22, 2015 14:15:01 GMT
Another update......
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 22, 2015 13:46:33 GMT
Our man in court has decided to head back for the afternoon session (quiet afternoon in the office . His latest update:
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 22, 2015 13:26:12 GMT
This was the post I was referring to from severncider on gaschat.... To others on here, the case MUST CLOSE at about 4pm this evening but NO VERDICT will be given today, as the Judge has to read all the evidence and the legal arguments from both sides. If I had to bet when the verdict will be made, I'd plump for 10.30 on Wednesday morning. This is based on the Court being closed on Bank Holiday Monday, the Judge gives both legal teams 24 hours notice of when the verdict will be given, so that points to Wednesday. I aim to be there for the verdict along with at least one other Gashead from this forum!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 22, 2015 13:22:03 GMT
You're both right - that's what i meant My verdict info was stolen from someone on here I think. I read "early next week" somewhere. My guess is that it will be 10am on the chosen day and it looks like Wednesday is the earliest that it could be, given not much on Tues: www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists/list-chancery-judges
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 22, 2015 12:43:01 GMT
Only just had chance to post his final update - this is from before the lunch break
I also picked up on the cockiness of the Sainsbury's team when I was there. Let's hope those smiles are wiped from their faces when the verdict is given next week
UTG
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 22, 2015 11:11:50 GMT
Some more detail fresh from the court from my contact - many thanks to him!
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 22, 2015 11:10:38 GMT
from severncider on gaschat.... To others on here, the case MUST CLOSE at about 4pm this evening but NO VERDICT will be given today, as the Judge has to read all the evidence and the legal arguments from both sides. If I had to bet when the verdict will be made, I'd plump for 10.30 on Wednesday morning. This is based on the Court being closed on Bank Holiday Monday, the Judge gives both legal teams 24 hours notice of when the verdict will be given, so that points to Wednesday. I aim to be there for the verdict along with at least one other Gashead from this forum!!!!!!! Might be 10 based on the other cases I've seen scheduled. They do a verdict at 10 and then a new case starts not before 10:30
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 22, 2015 10:11:39 GMT
Quick update from a contact who is in the courtroom now:
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 21, 2015 15:15:53 GMT
46 lever arch files of documents and this thread's on page 14 already too Thanks to piratey game for his update today.
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 21, 2015 7:51:19 GMT
I can't make it into court today so will miss the summing up or whatever is planned today. I've been in Friday - Weds for up to an hour each time and think it hangs in the balance.
I'm not quite so positive about TW as others from what I saw. I think Sainsbury's landed some blows and there were definitely things that Rovers could have done to help get the contract through, particularly around them only paying the minimum £500k towards the redemption and only agreeing to secure it at the point of exchange of contracts, not before. These might be minor points but I'm sure Sainsbury's legal team know exactly what they are doing and they could tip the balance in their favour.
On the positive side, I thought Rovers suggestions of what Sainsbury's did to stall, and how they were planning to dump the contract a long time in advance, and how they wanted the extended delivery hours application to fail, were all well presented. They are all just suggestions though. Nothing concrete. No email saying "let's deliberately make a meal of this so we can use it as an excuse to get out of the contract". Compare that weak evidence with the evidence of the messages between Fx traders saying explicitly what they were up to - and then getting nailed as a result.
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 20, 2015 17:45:59 GMT
Thanks for the write up piratey game. You won't see me in the afternoons because I'm back at work . I agree re. Severncider, I've managed only an hour each day and sone of if is very dull and just seems to meander.
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 20, 2015 12:39:47 GMT
Watola taking a bit of hammering today with JS suggesting he could have done more to expedite the planning application, he didn't send letters early enough, he didn't provide security for the retention loan early enough, instead saying he'd provide it on completion, he could have offered to pay the whole £1.1m rather than just £500k, etc etc. Could see NH getting a bit animated too but he did give TW a congratulatory pat on the back when he sat down.
Really no idea how this one will go but JS certainly struck some heavy blows today. I'm only getting to see an hour or so each day but I'm getting lost in some of the detail. The all-day chap will give a much better account later.
Watola is done giving evidence and they have planning consultants on the stand. The Rovers counsel made a bit of a mess of one point he was trying to make and abandoned it halfway through. I get the impression the judge has warmed to Matthias (the Rovers counsel) more than the JS counsel though. I also prefer the way he presents - not that it really matters but the JS counsel has lots of annoying pauses.
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 20, 2015 8:36:17 GMT
To anyone planning to go along, remember it's in the New Rolls Building off Fetter Lane EC4A 1NL, not the main High Court building. Court 17 is on the second floor, in the corner
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 19, 2015 15:26:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 19, 2015 13:24:14 GMT
Sat in for another hour today. Nothing groundbreaking. Tristan Hutton was being cross-examined. Think he is the most junior so far and works with Templeman and Pitman. Rovers arguments were mostly centred around the fact that JS knew that they would lose the application for extended opening hours, and they did nothing to stop it happening because they wanted it to happen.
It was recommended by TH that they look into the objections raised to the application and it was recommended by their PR firm that they liaise with the council and with the TRASH members. They did neither, Rovers suggesting that they did nothing knowing the application would fail as a result. There were emails saying that JS knew they had a "very weak technical case" and also emails using cost as an excuse not to try to do anything more to support the application (to stop it failing) when they clearly knew that it would fail.
TH got a bit confused with sequence of events and that was picked up but again, not really under real pressure IMO.
As an aside, I left the courtroom and followed Templeman and Pitman up Fetter St as we were both walking that way and I didn't hear much of the detail of what they were saying but they seem very cocky to me, incredulous at some of the evidence presented. Only my opinion but if they thought things were going badly, they didn't show it.
My overall view is that a lot of the evidence suggests Sainsburys did this or that but the evidence of anything direct like an email saying "let's dump this contract" is a bit lacking. Not really sure how concrete it needs to be or whether it's decided on the balance of probability that a reasonable person would do this or that.
Watola is up now.
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 19, 2015 7:34:42 GMT
Not sure she needed to qualify her review by stating she was a City fan, that was apparent very early on. #grimsbury
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 18, 2015 19:50:58 GMT
I still don't why our barrister doesn't ask for proof Sainsbury's needed the extended delivery hours when every other store in Bristol operates without them, plus haven't Sainsbury's just announced they are laying off all the night workers/shelf stockers has they can't afford to pay them? He did with reference to an application at Ashton Gate. He was demonstrating that they had submitted other applications where the same restrictions applied and it wasn't considered an issue for them in those applications
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 18, 2015 13:34:55 GMT
This morning's EP carried a summary of what happened on Friday, the interesting thing about it was that the wording was subtly different to what was being put on forums etc last Friday. Assuming that the EP have things right (they would, I guess, need to report accurately?) I'm not sure that the day was quite as bad for Sainsbury's as we were lead to believe? I don't think anyone really knows and people just offer an opinion based on what they hear. There is definitely evidence that JS were up to no good but whether it's enough to rule against them, only time will tell. The only opinion that counts is Mrs Justice Proudman
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 18, 2015 12:58:12 GMT
Does anyone have any news or updates from todays proceedings? I've just come back but was late and they stopped for lunch dead on 1pm so only saw 40 mins. The questioning of Templeman is over and they have switched to Pitman (who reports into him). All of what I saw was Matthias trying to demonstrate JS planned to dump the contract and were looking for reasons to get out of it. Particularly around the delivery hours restrictions but also some detail on how much "General Merchandise" they could sell - which I think is non-food and clothes. They were initially hoping for £1m revenue per week and that projection dropped to just over £800k. Deliveries of at least 5am-midnight were seen as critical if 24-7 wasn't allowed by BCC. There was a lot of talk of "onerous conditions" and suggestions that Pitman and Templeman were digging for more conditions so that they could get out of the contract without Rovers having some comeback Templeman and Pitman both seemed quite relaxed, not under any real pressure. I'm sure you'll get a decent write up later from the guy that's in there all day. Mine is mostly waffle! Watola had his suitcase with him
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 18, 2015 10:02:43 GMT
If you take the 5 000 to 6 000 regular Rovers supporters and spread them out amongst the many thousands of day trippers it's bound to dilute the noise. Grimsby were probably less diluted in numbers and more concentrated in space, but they were good, spurred on by the early goal. I wonder if they would have been singing 1-0 down. The Massive that was in Block 142 gave it bigtime on the song front..... but only when the rest got going +1 Was in block 142 and have a big headache today from singing very loudly. It's harder to get everyone involved when you're all seated though
|
|