|
Post by imanobody on Feb 12, 2015 18:35:39 GMT
The best bit of news I've read all day is that 'kid in a riot' seems to think we will win the court case, and he has been spot on with his source of information every time. First things I've enjoyed reading on that Nlbr thread.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 12, 2015 18:52:43 GMT
So "kid" knows more than Sainsbury's lawyers about contract law? Surely if their case was that weak they would have made us an offer by now?
|
|
|
Post by banjoflyer on Feb 12, 2015 19:08:57 GMT
Don't forget with all this talk of offers from Sainbury's and whether we should accept or not, that we also have a contract with UWE. What if they said that by accepting we did not use all "reasonable endeavours" to complete that contract. And thus sued us. At the very least I imagine any settlement offer would also lead to a proportionate offer to UWE leaving even less money for Directors/MSP/ground improvements!
Whatever happens now, The time will come when Sainsbury's find themselves in the press/media for all the wrong reasons. I mean they even had the support of the Prime Minister in parliament at a time when they either had or were thinking of pulling out of the deal.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 20:53:52 GMT
Does anyone know if there is any right of appeal after the court makes their decision? So if Rovers win, can Sainsbury appeal and vice versa??
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 12, 2015 21:03:26 GMT
Don't forget with all this talk of offers from Sainbury's and whether we should accept or not, that we also have a contract with UWE. What if they said that by accepting we did not use all "reasonable endeavours" to complete that contract. And thus sued us. At the very least I imagine any settlement offer would also lead to a proportionate offer to UWE leaving even less money for Directors/MSP/ground improvements! Whatever happens now, The time will come when Sainsbury's find themselves in the press/media for all the wrong reasons. I mean they even had the support of the Prime Minister in parliament at a time when they either had or were thinking of pulling out of the deal. Surely that will only happen if the case goes against them, what if the Judge agrees they could walk away from the contract? Does anyone know if there is any right of appeal after the court makes their decision? So if Rovers win, can Sainsbury appeal and vice versa?? In English law everyone as the right to appeal, if they were so minded they could even go to the House of Lords & then the European Courts of Justice, but hopefully it won't come to that!
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Feb 12, 2015 22:15:53 GMT
Don't forget with all this talk of offers from Sainbury's and whether we should accept or not, that we also have a contract with UWE. What if they said that by accepting we did not use all "reasonable endeavours" to complete that contract. And thus sued us. At the very least I imagine any settlement offer would also lead to a proportionate offer to UWE leaving even less money for Directors/MSP/ground improvements! Whatever happens now, The time will come when Sainsbury's find themselves in the press/media for all the wrong reasons. I mean they even had the support of the Prime Minister in parliament at a time when they either had or were thinking of pulling out of the deal. Surely that will only happen if the case goes against them, what if the Judge agrees they could walk away from the contract? Does anyone know if there is any right of appeal after the court makes their decision? So if Rovers win, can Sainsbury appeal and vice versa?? In English law everyone as the right to appeal, if they were so minded they could even go to the House of Lords & then the European Courts of Justice, but hopefully it won't come to that! It's not the House of Lords any more - it's now the Supreme Court. But I imagine they all drink in the same private clubs and know very little about Bristol Rovers. I can't see us being able to afford a Supreme Court appeal. Maybe one expensive court case too many. Sainsbo's of course, could just set aside one day's profit on pet food to afford it.
|
|
LincsBlue
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 685
|
Post by LincsBlue on Feb 12, 2015 23:05:33 GMT
So "kid" knows more than Sainsbury's lawyers about contract law? Surely if their case was that weak they would have made us an offer by now? Perhaps they have
|
|
LincsBlue
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 685
|
Post by LincsBlue on Feb 12, 2015 23:09:37 GMT
Whichever way the decision goes, the losing party can't just appeal because they want to. Their barrister has to have legal grounds to do so
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 16:47:53 GMT
News Archives EXPEDITED TRIAL IN THE BRISTOL ROVERS v SAINSBURY’S LITIGATION On Monday 12 February 2015 at a contested hearing in the Chancery Division Mr Justice Roth ordered that a claim for breach of contract brought by Bristol Rovers football club against Sainsbury’s Supermarkets should be expedited on the basis that the claim had an objective urgency which justified it “jumping the queue”. The expedited trial will take place in mid-May of this year. David Matthias Q.C. and George Mackenzie represented Bristol Rovers at the hearing, and sought the order for expedition with detailed directions to facilitate a speedy trial. In 2011 Bristol Rovers contracted to sell Sainsbury’s the site of their football stadium for a superstore-led mixed use redevelopment. It was envisaged that the funds from the sale - some £30 million - would enable the club to construct a new state-of-the-art stadium on the campus of the University of the West of England. Bristol Rovers claims that, in breach of the contract, Sainsbury’s failed to use all reasonable endeavours to ensure that a satisfactory planning permission for the proposed superstore was granted and acted in bad faith in respect of their contractual obligations towards the club. As a result it seems clear that the delivery of the new stadium will be a significantly more complex and expensive enterprise than had originally been anticipated. The judge also ordered Sainsbury’s to undertake an onerous disclosure exercise which, he ruled, must be completed within the next 7 weeks. Sainsbury’s had argued that the exercise could not be accomplished within less than 3 months and indicated that they would not be ready for trial before 2016. Not suprisingly the case has already generated significant public interest. The Bristol Post reported on Monday’s hearing here: www.bristolpost.co.uk/Key-hearing-pushed-forward-Bristol-Rovers-plans/story-25997409-detail/story.htmlDavid Matthias Q.C. and George Mackenzie appeared for Bristol Rovers and were instructed directly by Jim Tarzey of Pegasus Planning. They were assisted by Burges Salmon who are also instructed on behalf of Bristol Rovers.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 16:52:12 GMT
I noted that the date was wrong in the above report taken from Higgs legals website. I hope they are more accurate in court.
|
|
|
Post by upminstergas on Feb 13, 2015 17:03:08 GMT
Don't forget with all this talk of offers from Sainbury's and whether we should accept or not, that we also have a contract with UWE. What if they said that by accepting we did not use all "reasonable endeavours" to complete that contract. And thus sued us. At the very least I imagine any settlement offer would also lead to a proportionate offer to UWE leaving even less money for Directors/MSP/ground improvements! Whatever happens now, The time will come when Sainsbury's find themselves in the press/media for all the wrong reasons. I mean they even had the support of the Prime Minister in parliament at a time when they either had or were thinking of pulling out of the deal. Surely that will only happen if the case goes against them, what if the Judge agrees they could walk away from the contract? Does anyone know if there is any right of appeal after the court makes their decision? So if Rovers win, can Sainsbury appeal and vice versa?? In English law everyone as the right to appeal, if they were so minded they could even go to the House of Lords & then the European Courts of Justice, but hopefully it won't come to that! There is no automatic right of appeal at the High Court, you have to seek leave to appeal from the Judge, if he grants you leave to appeal you can take it to the Court of Appeal, if the judge refuses you leave to appeal, you can still go directly to the Court of Appeal and seek permission there ,but i very much doubt we will get that far.
|
|
|
Post by banjoflyer on Feb 13, 2015 17:13:58 GMT
So Sainbury's said they would not be ready for trial until 2016 - that tactic is clear - to delay as long as possible so BRFC run out of money or UWE run out of patience. Glad the judge saw through that. They now have 7 weeks to disclosure and 3 months to trial. Might focus their minds?
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 13, 2015 17:23:09 GMT
I bet that went down well with the judge " We can't prepare case until 2016". Ha Ha Ha!
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Feb 13, 2015 18:09:01 GMT
I think Sainsburys will offer compensation, probably the day before the court convenes, which happens quite a lot because as the court date gets nearer they begin to weigh up their chances and if they are not certain to win, they will make an offer. Having said that, having all that land in their land bank would be a good thing for the long term future; lets face it the price of land is never going to go down.
It is interesting that Pegasus is also fighting on our side.
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Feb 13, 2015 18:24:51 GMT
Rovers Barrister
David Matthias QC, formerly of Cornerstone Barristers (2-3 Gray's Inn Square), is joining FTB with immediate effect.
David was called in 1980, took Silk in October 2006, and is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.
He acts for a wide range of private and local authority clients, specialising in commercial litigation and arbitration, licensing, public law and judicial review, and local government law. He has a wealth of experience and a strong reputation for advising and conducting both litigation and arbitration in major cases in those areas - recently, for example, on behalf of clients including Capita, Datasharp UK, West Ham United, Westminster City Council, the London Borough of Camden and Casinos Austria International GMBH. David's overseas work has included a recent appearance for a consortium of property developers before the Court of Appeal in the Turks and Caicos Islands.
Identified by The Legal 500 UK Edition and Chambers UK Guide, as a "leading new silk" ("Newly appointed silk David Matthias QC is lauded as a 'great technical barrister'..." - Chambers UK Guide 2007), David has been consistently praised in subsequent editions of those guides as being "Strong both technically and legally," and "... always prepared to muck in and work hard for the clients...". He is consistently ranked as a leading silk and as having "made a name for himself" for being "subtly persuasive in court. His broad practice includes an active public law portfolio, and he has conducted a number of important judicial reviews in the past year."
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 13, 2015 18:32:35 GMT
I still reckon they will 'fight' largely because it is a 'test case' and brings into dispute the other 40 -50 stores axed. Anyone can work out Sainsbury's agenda : it's just collating enough evidence... If we win : could it open up other legal challenges about axed stores
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Feb 13, 2015 19:06:15 GMT
I'm not surprised Sainsbury's tried to delay the hearing, but I am surprised they tried to take the widdle by saying they wouldn't be ready for almost a year. Perhaps if they'd gone for something more 'reasonable' - say 6 months - they might have been granted it.
What is interesting to me though is that the judge has ordered them to undertake an onerous disclosure exercise.
Many have wondered if the onerous issues they previously 'waived' were no longer valid, or merely parked until such time as they could resurrect them if required. What the judge has ordered from them would suggest he doesn't want or wouldn't tolerate any last-minute surprise onerous conditions being unveiled at the hearing.
Three cheers for the Judge.
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Feb 13, 2015 19:14:54 GMT
at the risk of sounding "fick" what is an onerous disclosure ?
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Feb 13, 2015 22:10:38 GMT
It is things that Sainsbury's identified very early in the planning process that might cause them to want to pull out of the deal, if planning permission was granted but not in ways to their liking. They sign the contract two years ago (or whatever) but say there are certain "onerous conditions" that, if not met, might give them a reason to pull out. There were 3 or 4, I think, but one key one was allowing extended delivery hours. When planning was granted, Bristol City Council restricted the delivery hours. When Sainsburys decided they no longer wanted the store, they didn't bother to appeal about this onerous condition not being met until we did it ourselves, without any support from them. After which we issued a writ to recover costs for being forced to do it ourselves. The other onerous conditions were identified by Sainsburys but were set aside as not being deal-breakers. What they are, I do not know, but there is a possibility they could raise them again as further reasons not to buy the Mem.
Or something like that.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Feb 13, 2015 22:46:42 GMT
at the risk of sounding "fick" what is an onerous disclosure ? I think I remember from science class at school that it was a kind of aquatic dinosaur.
|
|