Royal Courts of Justice - Day Two - Severciders Report

Surely these comments aren't helping thier case?

Mr Matthias then asked if Sainsbury's board members were 'pleased' with the outcome.

Mr Templeman said: "In the context of the commercial situation, if that meant we did not have to complete the purchase of the site, given what I said earlier about the expected return on investment, then yes, that was a positive outcome."

Bizarre Templeman's is freely admitting Sainsbury's were "pleased" they didn't get the delivery hours agreed, then Rovers managed to get them later!

Surely Proudman will see Sainsbury's had no interest in getting full pp before the contract lapsed??

I'm a bit concerned she didn't lead the court in a chorus of Goodnight Irene.

It is and I expect her response lacked sincerity.

Todays hearing opened with BRFC barrister announcing that the club was promoted back to the football league yesterday, to be honest I do think it made and impression on the Judge or even if she understood the information.

Our legal team stated by confirming that over the weekend more information had been found from the period 2011/12. The Judge said the case must finish on Friday and then she is straight into a new case leaving her little time to review the evidence. Chris Templeton of Sainsbury resumed being questioned from Friday.

The wording “loss of appetite” was mentioned several times with regard to publicity to counteract adverse publicity. It was confirmed that the delivery hours, which is the reason Sainsbury want to void the Contract was the same at The Mem as what was granted for Ashton Gate. Sainsbury agreed the delivery times granted met the terms of the Contract.

BRFC said they would pay the £1.6m CIL charge PROVIDED Sainsbury accepted the terms of the planning permission. Sentences “work every edge to our benefit” and “keep costs to the minimum” were mentioned in documents from Sainsbury. Another quote was “the elephant in the room” regarding the Section 73 variation and “we need to slow things down and to “duck and dive”

Sainsbury confirmed that they did not get involve in the JR as they did not feel it was their responsibility. BRFC barrister suggested that if Sainsbury really wanted to proceed they would have become involved.

It was indicated that Bristol City Council supplied confidential information to Sainsbury with regard to the possibility the Section 73 may be refused and Sainsbury should have kept BRFC up to date of this. Chris Templeton (Sainsbury) confirmed that he was dealing with about 120 projects so could not know everything on all these projects. When the Section 73 was refused, Sainsbury Board were happy. Chris Templeton finished his questioning at 12.40.

Ben Litman of Sainsbury dealt with the day to day matters of the Contract and he was next up to be questioned. He confirmed that he became aware of the Ashton Gate delivery hours they were prepared to accept 05.00 to 23.00 even though they wanted 05.00 to 24.00 at The Mem.

LUNCH BREAK

It was reconfirmed that BRFC paid out £400k in fees not knowing Sainsbury were to refuse to pay the £1.6m CIL payment.

Willingham and Radice were mentioned along with a Tom Kennedy as objectors. A meeting was requested by Charlotte Leslie MP to discuss the problems with Ben Litman and Litman gained the impression that she did not know what a JR was. However, this was refuted as no evidence in subsequent emails letters could be found. It was confirmed that Sainsbury do not automatically get involved in JR’s or Section 73’s. Nick Higgs asked Sainsbury in Nov 013 if they still wished to proceed? BRFC indicated that building costs were increasing at UWE, £400k for plans and £400k for Buckingham group plans and BRFC did not want to commit funds unless Sainsbury were committed to scheme. Sainsbury said “they were committed under the terms of the Contract” but not in reality. Litman said “that in hindsight I could have advised BRFC we did not wish to proceed”

END OF TODAYS PROCEEDINGS AT 16.20

It must be remembered that BRFC are trying to put Sainsbury in the worst possible way at this stage.

Tomorrow Litman will resume giving evidence followed by two other people on behalf of Sainsbury, then if there is time Toni Watola will start his evidence, if there is not time, he will start on Tuesday..

I hope this conveys what went on, there could well be things omitted.

Restart tomorrow at 10.30

Thanks for the report.

Brilliant work again Severncider, it's sounding at worse we'll get some compensation, it's odd Sainsbury's are freely admitting they didn't assist with the JR etc was there any mention the contract included the suggestion that Sainsbury's should carry out "reasonable endeavours" to get PP?

I guess the club's legal team maybe producing the Internet reports as I assume they would have to approve anything published in any event.