Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 23:06:30 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. Or after a few drinks? Ie fancy a fick? (Whatever that is)
|
|
mjg
Mickey Barrett
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 48
|
Post by mjg on Feb 14, 2015 6:27:52 GMT
at the risk of sounding "fick" what is an onerous disclosure ? Disclosure is the stage in litigation where each party has to disclose to the other party all of the documents they have in their possession or control that are relevant to the issues in the case, and aren't subject to some sort of legal privilege. This will include letters, reports, notes of meetings and phone calls, planning applications, draft documents that never were used, text messages and interviews with media and so on. These days e-disclosure is the norm with the parties expected to carry out word searches to produce all relevant documents. Those documents then have to be listed and someone with relevant authority within the company has to sign a statement of truth saying they understand their disclosure obligations and have carried out an appropriate search. Each party then has the right to copies of all documents disclosed. It's a bit of a dry-sounding exercise but actually is of enormous significance in litigation and can often lead to pre-trial fighting where one party alleges that the other has not complied with their obligations and a judge might then order specific disclosure or threaten to throw a case out if the party in default doesn't get their act together and provide proper disclosure. For example if there is a open (as opposed to without prejudice) letter from BRFC to Sainsbury's asking them when they were going to complete then this would have to be disclosed by both sides. If Sainsbury's made a copy and the Chief Exec scribbled 'never!' on it in green crayon, this would also have to be disclosed. Both sides have to go through this exercise. If the disclosure that has been ordered by the judge is being described as 'onerous' this suggests it's at the top end of the disclosure obligations, and will require a lot of time and resource to be put behind it. For the avoidance of doubt it's not a reference to the onerous conditions that are apparently referred to in the contract.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2015 7:24:50 GMT
Mjg that is a fantastic post and explains the demand from the judge superbly.
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Feb 14, 2015 9:30:11 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. Thanks Aghast So Sainsbury's wanting until 2016 suggests that they have a shed load of onerous conditions or another delaying tactic.
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Feb 14, 2015 9:33:19 GMT
at the risk of sounding "fick" what is an onerous disclosure ? Disclosure is the stage in litigation where each party has to disclose to the other party all of the documents they have in their possession or control that are relevant to the issues in the case, and aren't subject to some sort of legal privilege. This will include letters, reports, notes of meetings and phone calls, planning applications, draft documents that never were used, text messages and interviews with media and so on. These days e-disclosure is the norm with the parties expected to carry out word searches to produce all relevant documents. Those documents then have to be listed and someone with relevant authority within the company has to sign a statement of truth saying they understand their disclosure obligations and have carried out an appropriate search. Each party then has the right to copies of all documents disclosed. It's a bit of a dry-sounding exercise but actually is of enormous significance in litigation and can often lead to pre-trial fighting where one party alleges that the other has not complied with their obligations and a judge might then order specific disclosure or threaten to throw a case out if the party in default doesn't get their act together and provide proper disclosure. For example if there is a open (as opposed to without prejudice) letter from BRFC to Sainsbury's asking them when they were going to complete then this would have to be disclosed by both sides. If Sainsbury's made a copy and the Chief Exec scribbled 'never!' on it in green crayon, this would also have to be disclosed. Both sides have to go through this exercise. If the disclosure that has been ordered by the judge is being described as 'onerous' this suggests it's at the top end of the disclosure obligations, and will require a lot of time and resource to be put behind it. For the avoidance of doubt it's not a reference to the onerous conditions that are apparently referred to in the contract. Yes excellent post, Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Feb 14, 2015 9:34:23 GMT
I think I remember from science class at school that it was a kind of aquatic dinosaur. Or after a few drinks? Ie fancy a fick? (Whatever that is) Tut tut surely one is science the other Biology !
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2015 10:15:53 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. Thanks Aghast So Sainsbury's wanting until 2016 suggests that they have a shed load of onerous conditions or another delaying tactic. Quite the opposite, they have no defence in my mind and are just playing for time
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2015 10:37:21 GMT
Thanks Aghast So Sainsbury's wanting until 2016 suggests that they have a shed load of onerous conditions or another delaying tactic. Quite the opposite, they have no defence in my mind and are just playing for time Do you actually read what people write?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2015 10:48:14 GMT
Quite the opposite, they have no defence in my mind and are just playing for time Do you actually read what people write? Nope i'm just a wind up merchant
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Feb 14, 2015 11:36:11 GMT
Can not prepare case before 2016? It would take me 30 seconds to highlight the bit in the contract that states, Needs to be exchanged by x date and chuck it down in front of the judge. Seems to me that there case is all about digging in and hoping we either run out of cash, or UWE pull out. Proper C you next tuesdays
|
|
|
Post by warwickgas on Feb 14, 2015 11:41:59 GMT
Also, neither party can produce documents in support of their case at the trial which they failed to disclose to their opponent during the Disclosure Period. The short 7 week period to get your documents together will not suit Sainsbury by the sound of it .
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Feb 14, 2015 16:15:57 GMT
Can't help thinking after the judges decision & a great explanation by mjg that very early in the game it is one nil to rovers, with an own goal. It seems if Sainsburys legal team claim they need 10 months plus to get the onerous obligations together and the judge says no its 7 weeks that they couldn't be further apart in their views. Also going back to the previous Sainsburys thread I could never understand if Sainsburys had a cut & dried case to walk away, as many claimed, why they hadn't. Now I'm thinking the same again if Sainsburys are on safe legal ground why seek to delay the hearing until 2016?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 14, 2015 18:00:22 GMT
I don't disagree we look to be 1-0 up to suggest it'll take 10 months to get a few documents available is nonsense, however, it seems Sainsbury's have surely walked away hence why we're in court anyway?
I sense Sainsbury's wanted to delay it to either hope we go bankrupt/give up or the UWE get fed up, of waiting. I suppose that means they aren't 100% convinced they have a good case or surely they would want it decided in court sooner rather than later?
After today's events you do wonder if our luck is finally changing?
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,167
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Feb 14, 2015 18:06:11 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. Thanks Aghast So Sainsbury's wanting until 2016 suggests that they have a shed load of onerous conditions or another delaying tactic. I would have thought Sainsbury are most likely using their internal legal team with the help of a barrister in court. An internal legal team would have access to all documents as they would have produced most of them for Sainsbury's side and received and dealt with the Rovers correspondance. Therefore I would assume this is a delaying tactic which the judge has seen through. IMHO
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Feb 14, 2015 19:24:31 GMT
Can't help thinking after the judges decision & a great explanation by mjg that very early in the game it is one nil to rovers, with an own goal. It seems if Sainsburys legal team claim they need 10 months plus to get the onerous obligations together and the judge says no its 7 weeks that they couldn't be further apart in their views. Also going back to the previous Sainsburys thread I could never understand if Sainsburys had a cut & dried case to walk away, as many claimed, why they hadn't. Now I'm thinking the same again if Sainsburys are on safe legal ground why seek to delay the hearing until 2016? CGH Why do you keep persisting with this line that Sainsburys haven't walked away? THEY HAVE and so therefore we are grabbing them by the scruff of the neck and marching them to the high court.
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Feb 14, 2015 23:44:29 GMT
Can't help thinking after the judges decision & a great explanation by mjg that very early in the game it is one nil to rovers, with an own goal. It seems if Sainsburys legal team claim they need 10 months plus to get the onerous obligations together and the judge says no its 7 weeks that they couldn't be further apart in their views. Also going back to the previous Sainsburys thread I could never understand if Sainsburys had a cut & dried case to walk away, as many claimed, why they hadn't. Now I'm thinking the same again if Sainsburys are on safe legal ground why seek to delay the hearing until 2016? CGH Why do you keep persisting with this line that Sainsburys haven't walked away? THEY HAVE and so therefore we are grabbing them by the scruff of the neck and marching them to the high court. It's some sort of strange delusion that a few have. They walked away many months ago, as subsequent events have proved, not least the fact that we're suing them for walking away, but some people seem unable to accept it. I think the reassuring statements from the Board that the project is on track, and barring a few last formalities, we should be ready to start the build in a few months, might have sucked in a few. Whereas we all know now that NH was talking nonsense to the fans of the club. Presumably for legal/confidentiality issues. But it certainly sucked us all in. Or many of us, at least. Sorry to sound negative on a day when we had a great result today, and may be a giant step closer to getting back to the Football League, but these issues won't go away whether we go up or not.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Feb 15, 2015 0:08:59 GMT
CGH Why do you keep persisting with this line that Sainsburys haven't walked away? THEY HAVE and so therefore we are grabbing them by the scruff of the neck and marching them to the high court. It's some sort of strange delusion that a few have. They walked away many months ago, as subsequent events have proved, not least the fact that we're suing them for walking away, but some people seem unable to accept it. I think the reassuring statements from the Board that the project is on track, and barring a few last formalities, we should be ready to start the build in a few months, might have sucked in a few. Whereas we all know now that NH was talking nonsense to the fans of the club. Presumably for legal/confidentiality issues. But it certainly sucked us all in. Or many of us, at least. Sorry to sound negative on a day when we had a great result today, and may be a giant step closer to getting back to the Football League, but these issues won't go away whether we go up or not. It should have been obvious to all what Sainsbury's attitude was to the whole project when they played no part in supporting us during the Judicial Review process
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Feb 15, 2015 1:37:09 GMT
Can't help thinking after the judges decision & a great explanation by mjg that very early in the game it is one nil to rovers, with an own goal. It seems if Sainsburys legal team claim they need 10 months plus to get the onerous obligations together and the judge says no its 7 weeks that they couldn't be further apart in their views. Also going back to the previous Sainsburys thread I could never understand if Sainsburys had a cut & dried case to walk away, as many claimed, why they hadn't. Now I'm thinking the same again if Sainsburys are on safe legal ground why seek to delay the hearing until 2016? CGH Why do you keep persisting with this line that Sainsburys haven't walked away? THEY HAVE and so therefore we are grabbing them by the scruff of the neck and marching them to the high court. I'm not deluded about Sainsburys WANTING to walk away (actually read some of my previous posts). The delusion is with those posters who believed that just because they want to walk away that they could regardless of contract law. Oddly to the deluded posters the judge believes that contract law should be examined to see if they have a legal right to cancel the contract. If you want to know who was deluded re-read the previous Sainsburys thread where I was one of the few who expected the judge to except a high court hearing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2015 21:28:20 GMT
Posted by the kid on the s**te forum.
#12796 Non League Bristol Rovers: post #12796 Kid in the Riot
Members 4731 posts Posted Today, 06:34 PM 29AR, on 14 Feb 2015 - 12:26 PM, said: As I understand it the disputed contract actually states that if NLBR cannot fund the completion of the UWE Stadium, then it would be Sainsbury's who would have to make up the shortfall.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2015 21:30:41 GMT
Also this ....
It surprised me too and the more I hear about the contract, the more I wonder which amateur Sainsbury's had on board when this "deal" was done. The reason for the term, as I understand, is that understandably UWE would not agree to anything which could potentially leave them with a half built stadium on their campus with no-one to play in it.
|
|