|
Post by Severncider on May 19, 2015 4:40:01 GMT
We restart at 10.30 with Ben Litman continuing to give evidence for about two hours. He was the Sainsbury employee who had overall control of the day to day matters regarding this contract.
He will be followed by Messers Hutton and Mann from Sainsbury's side and then, time permitting, Toni Watola will start his evidence.
I was told that the case is likely to run it's full course until Friday afternoon, but that the judges verdict will be given later but keeping in mind the urgency of the decision as agreed by Mr Justice Roth who was to hear the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 6:10:18 GMT
good work sunshine....
look forward to reading this after work....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 7:00:36 GMT
Thanks seven cider eagerly await the next episode
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 19, 2015 7:28:46 GMT
7c have you any idea why it's actually Sainsbury's suing BRFC rather than the vice versa as I think we had all assumed? It seems the only consideration the Judge has got to make is whether the contract is still binding or not, if so, talk of a comprise settlement or even offers from Sainsbury's for compensation seems wide of the mark? "Sainsbury's has brought the case to establish whether it can be released from its £30 million contract with Bristol Rovers to buy the ground" Read more: www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-Rovers-v-Sainsbury-s-having-buy-Mem/story-26527593-detail/story.html#ixzz3aZEIZ2e8
|
|
|
Post by Rovers 12th Man on May 19, 2015 7:48:54 GMT
7c have you any idea why it's actually Sainsbury's suing BRFC rather than the vice versa as I think we had all assumed? It seems the only consideration the Judge has got to make is whether the contract is still binding or not, if so, talk of a comprise settlement or even offers from Sainsbury's for compensation seems wide of the mark? "Sainsbury's has brought the case to establish whether it can be released from its £30 million contract with Bristol Rovers to buy the ground" Read more: www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-Rovers-v-Sainsbury-s-having-buy-Mem/story-26527593-detail/story.html#ixzz3aZEIZ2e8 I read that and was slightly confused as well. Especially as this is what the club said when the court action was announced... In a statement the club said: "Most of you will have read an article in today's edition of The Post detailing our intention to take Sainsbury's to the High Court regarding their contract to purchase the Memorial Stadium site.
"It is with regret that we have felt it necessary to revert to High Court action to complete our contract with Sainsbury's but it was felt that this course of action was necessary to allow us to invest in our new stadium at UWE."
|
|
|
Post by peterhooper57 on May 19, 2015 8:08:15 GMT
I do not claim to really understand the technicalities involved in the decision making around this case; however, I would say from what i have heard so far, I do not see how BRFC are going to win this case with there being so much uncertainity around if and when sainsburys had said all the conditions were or were not satisfied. It seems to be a whole **** fest, I cannot see how the judge can clearly say that sainsburys had not walked away, it appears to me rovers were dragging sainsburys along even though they had said they no longer wanted to buy the ground. This is all too complicated for me. Over to C7. UTG
|
|
|
Post by I Voted For Kodos on May 19, 2015 8:37:05 GMT
Although we sued Sainsbury's first, I believe I read that they then counter-sued us, so that technically we're now the defendants.
|
|
|
Post by amgas on May 19, 2015 8:38:23 GMT
Have you read the reports on the case ? The quick summary is that before the deadline Sainsbury's decided they wanted out and started doing ( or not doing ) things to "run down the clock". At the same time they did not tell Rovers that they had no intention to continue, which meant the club continued to spend on the project.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 19, 2015 9:40:57 GMT
Although we sued Sainsbury's first, I believe I read that they then counter-sued us, so that technically we're now the defendants. The legal system doesn't work like that, a claimant can't suddenly become a defendant unless we've dropped our case? But the original summons regarding the pp was never issued so perhaps it is just Sainsbury's suing now BRFC to get clarification if the contract is still in force or as lapsed. It all seems a bit odd to me as I got the impression from the last hearing the club was trying to force a quick decision not Sainsbury's!! I assume that's why Walota goes last in the witness box as he's actually the defendant's main witness not the clamant's as we'd all assumed?
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on May 19, 2015 10:50:43 GMT
Ben Litmans evidence ended 11.40 with more daming evidence against Sainsbury. There was no cross examination by the Judge or Sainsbury barrister.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on May 19, 2015 10:54:14 GMT
I'm almost as nervous about this as Sunday.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 11:06:56 GMT
The judge deciding the fate of Bristol's Memorial Stadium site today told the High Court she was pleased to hear of Rovers' promotion.
Mrs Justice Proudman, who is hearing the dispute between the club and Sainsbury's over a £30m deal to redevelop the site and fund a new 21,700 stadium, said: "Good", when told of yesterday's triumph over Grimsby Town.
Rovers won on penalties at Wembley to secure a place in the football league.
David Matthias QC, representing the club, told the judge of the historic win before continuing his cross-examination of Chris Templeman, Sainsbury's head of planning.
Mr Templeman said Sainsbury's had used 'all reasonable endeavours' to go through with the proposed supermarket development.
The court heard that, after Bristol City Council refused the shopping chain's application to change restrictions on its delivery times, the store could not go ahead.
Mr Matthias asked if Sainsbury's could have withdrawn the application, in view of an ongoing judicial review by pressure group Traders and Residents Against Sainsbury's Horfield (Trash), and applied again at a 'better time’.
Mr Templeman replied: "Well yes, whatever a better time means. (One councillor) said we should wait until the following year, or maybe a year after that, and there was a suggestion we could have applied after the store was open - neither of those options was commercially viable."
He also refuted the barrister's suggestion that it was 'bad faith' not to tell Rovers about the expected problems with the delivery restrictions in advance of the council's decision.
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."
The club's barrister also referred to an email sent immediately after the council's decision, in which Mr Templeman said he 'feared the worst in PR terms' but that the supermarket chain would be withdrawing from the deal with Rovers.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 19, 2015 11:19:01 GMT
Its Bristol Rovers v Sainsbury. Rovers are the first name so they are the people who have brought the case
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 11:22:46 GMT
Its Bristol Rovers v Sainsbury. Rovers are the first name so they are the people who have brought the case home game innit
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on May 19, 2015 11:43:41 GMT
7c have you any idea why it's actually Sainsbury's suing BRFC rather than the vice versa as I think we had all assumed? It seems the only consideration the Judge has got to make is whether the contract is still binding or not, if so, talk of a comprise settlement or even offers from Sainsbury's for compensation seems wide of the mark? "Sainsbury's has brought the case to establish whether it can be released from its £30 million contract with Bristol Rovers to buy the ground" Read more: www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-Rovers-v-Sainsbury-s-having-buy-Mem/story-26527593-detail/story.html#ixzz3aZEIZ2e8 The post on here from the trainee barrister that was copied from OTIB said the emphasis had been switched because Sainsbury's have to put the case why they shouldn't complete the contract rather than Rovers why they should, if that makes sense?
|
|
|
Post by Cantankerous Gas on May 19, 2015 11:46:51 GMT
Its Bristol Rovers v Sainsbury. Rovers are the first name so they are the people who have brought the case Sainsbury's are named first on the Courts' website....
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 19, 2015 11:47:56 GMT
Its Bristol Rovers v Sainsbury. Rovers are the first name so they are the people who have brought the case Sainsbury's are named first on the Courts' website.... that it fcuked !
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 19, 2015 12:06:06 GMT
So we've thought all along we were suing Sainsbury's to teach them a lesson but in fact they are suing us! It could only happen at Rovers!
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on May 19, 2015 12:46:54 GMT
Toni Watola will start his evidence this afternoon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 12:47:40 GMT
So we've thought all along we were suing Sainsbury's to teach them a lesson but in fact they are suing us! It could only happen at Rovers! Yes the deceit at boardroom level knows no boundaries at all, some supporters were shocked about the Cheltenham bare faced lies, just goes to show doesn't it just how much contempt there is for the fans, void of anger these days towards that lot, and feeling sick with every statement the chairman makes indicating he is going absolutely nowhere. Every statement, decision seems to be based on a whim, which is why I have said before just how big a deal Darrell and the team achieving what they had done up until March has been nothing short of a miracle really, this latest news certainly explains why he was so mute on the subject of the court case yesterday.
|
|