Royal Courts of Justice - Day One - Severciders Report
May 15, 2015 19:35:16 GMT
RD, Strange Gas, and 16 more like this
Post by Severncider on May 15, 2015 19:35:16 GMT
OK, back at my sisters.
Nick Higgs and Toni Watola were in attendance. The Judge started by reconfirming that the case was time limited and must be completed by next Friday afternoon and that it is most unlikely she would give a decision next Friday in view of all the evidence but would give her decision as soon as possible.
The opening arguments took 10 minutes by Sainsbury and 75 minutes by BRFC. Within the opening arguments BRFC tried to get a lot of privilege (redacted) evidence disclosed but the Judge was not persuaded by the arguments and BRFC legal team did not challenge the decision.
A senior Sainsbury executive then stated being cross examined and his evidence did not give me any real concern as he could not answer some simple questions and comments like I cannot remember if I saw a document was then made to look a bit of a fool when subsequent emails and letters from him showed he had seen the documents.
The evidence extracted confirmed that Sainsbury wanted to exit this contract from BEFORE the planning permission was granted. When the Contract was signed, they expected to get a return of 12% on their investment, it was called “not hitting the target”. By the time of the Planning Permission this had reduced to 7% so in Sainsbury eyes this was a contract they no longer wanted to complete.
Our legal team asked why Sainsbury did not bring this to BRFC attention and allowed them to rack up extensive additional costs. There was no real answer. The decision to want to avoid this Contract was taken all the way up to Justin King, the then CEO.
BRFC legal team managed to find documentary evidence of words like “finding the silver bullet” to avoid the contract, “scheme not hitting the hurdle” failing the 12% return, using the word “manipulating” the executive could not give a reason when he used those words.
Sainsbury did not want to pay the £1.6m CIL and 106 costs, Justin King was strongly opposed to the CIL payment as he considered it a tax on business. When told by Sainsbury they would not pay this Sainsbury suggested the other Stakeholders may wish to pay it. NH is alleged to have indicated neither he, UWE etc would pay it and it may have been necessary to liquidate BRFC. The club did offer to reduce the £1.6m price that Sainsbury would pay us in return for the naming rights, but Sainsbury were not interested. Do not ask me about the naming rights as I thought that was already been granted to UWE. With regard to the £1.6m BRFC legal team asked if that had been paid, that money would nave not helped BRFC as Sainsbury would have said “thanks very much but by the way you failed with the delivery conditions” so would have paid £1.6m for no good reason.
The Sainsbury executive was struggling at certain stages and he has to appear on Monday to continue his evidence.
The case revolves around the meaning of the wording “cut off date” which may sound simple but it was subject to certain conditions being achieved on both sides. The delivery times were probed, Sainsbury wanted 5am to midnight which the Council originally did not agree too and Sainsbury wanted the Contract cancelled on this point. We all know that the hours were amended to what Sainsbury wanted.
Sainsbury were disappointed that planning permission was granted, also disappointed that the JR failed.
I was there for the whole days meeting and am sure have not covered everything, I have extensive notes. There were two individuals who appeared for brief periods and appeared to be tweeting, not sure if they were Gasheads, but they did not appear to stay the whole course. If I think of more important details I will add to this.
So it’s back on Monday at 10.30 and another five days of evidence. My summary is that we had a good first day and Sainsbury were not shown in a good light. NH and TW were happy with the first day. TW will be giving evidence but NH may not be called, he wants to give evidence but it a question of fitting it in the time allowed.
My opinion base on the evidence so far is Sainsbury are a load of l****, bar stewards
Nick Higgs and Toni Watola were in attendance. The Judge started by reconfirming that the case was time limited and must be completed by next Friday afternoon and that it is most unlikely she would give a decision next Friday in view of all the evidence but would give her decision as soon as possible.
The opening arguments took 10 minutes by Sainsbury and 75 minutes by BRFC. Within the opening arguments BRFC tried to get a lot of privilege (redacted) evidence disclosed but the Judge was not persuaded by the arguments and BRFC legal team did not challenge the decision.
A senior Sainsbury executive then stated being cross examined and his evidence did not give me any real concern as he could not answer some simple questions and comments like I cannot remember if I saw a document was then made to look a bit of a fool when subsequent emails and letters from him showed he had seen the documents.
The evidence extracted confirmed that Sainsbury wanted to exit this contract from BEFORE the planning permission was granted. When the Contract was signed, they expected to get a return of 12% on their investment, it was called “not hitting the target”. By the time of the Planning Permission this had reduced to 7% so in Sainsbury eyes this was a contract they no longer wanted to complete.
Our legal team asked why Sainsbury did not bring this to BRFC attention and allowed them to rack up extensive additional costs. There was no real answer. The decision to want to avoid this Contract was taken all the way up to Justin King, the then CEO.
BRFC legal team managed to find documentary evidence of words like “finding the silver bullet” to avoid the contract, “scheme not hitting the hurdle” failing the 12% return, using the word “manipulating” the executive could not give a reason when he used those words.
Sainsbury did not want to pay the £1.6m CIL and 106 costs, Justin King was strongly opposed to the CIL payment as he considered it a tax on business. When told by Sainsbury they would not pay this Sainsbury suggested the other Stakeholders may wish to pay it. NH is alleged to have indicated neither he, UWE etc would pay it and it may have been necessary to liquidate BRFC. The club did offer to reduce the £1.6m price that Sainsbury would pay us in return for the naming rights, but Sainsbury were not interested. Do not ask me about the naming rights as I thought that was already been granted to UWE. With regard to the £1.6m BRFC legal team asked if that had been paid, that money would nave not helped BRFC as Sainsbury would have said “thanks very much but by the way you failed with the delivery conditions” so would have paid £1.6m for no good reason.
The Sainsbury executive was struggling at certain stages and he has to appear on Monday to continue his evidence.
The case revolves around the meaning of the wording “cut off date” which may sound simple but it was subject to certain conditions being achieved on both sides. The delivery times were probed, Sainsbury wanted 5am to midnight which the Council originally did not agree too and Sainsbury wanted the Contract cancelled on this point. We all know that the hours were amended to what Sainsbury wanted.
Sainsbury were disappointed that planning permission was granted, also disappointed that the JR failed.
I was there for the whole days meeting and am sure have not covered everything, I have extensive notes. There were two individuals who appeared for brief periods and appeared to be tweeting, not sure if they were Gasheads, but they did not appear to stay the whole course. If I think of more important details I will add to this.
So it’s back on Monday at 10.30 and another five days of evidence. My summary is that we had a good first day and Sainsbury were not shown in a good light. NH and TW were happy with the first day. TW will be giving evidence but NH may not be called, he wants to give evidence but it a question of fitting it in the time allowed.
My opinion base on the evidence so far is Sainsbury are a load of l****, bar stewards
