|
Post by rking89 on May 20, 2015 19:36:44 GMT
Sainsbury's tells judge they could have pulled out of contract with Rovers to buy Memorial StadiumBy The Bristol Post | Posted: May 20, 2015 A judge was told that Sainsbury's would have set an "awful trap" for Bristol Rovers if it had withdrawn a planning application for a new store at the Memorial Stadium. Mark Wonnacott QC argued that if the supermarket chain had pulled out of its bid to change Bristol City Council's restrictions on the proposed store's delivery hours, it would have been able to end its agreement with the club at that point. He added that as it was, Sainsbury's did not end the contract until after the council refused to alter the delivery times - which he said released them from the agreement. The club has previously argued that the supermarket chain should have withdrawn the application and tried again at a later date, when it became apparent the council would not alter the delivery hours - amid intense local pressure and while a judicial review by TRASHorfield was ongoing. The council eventually agreed to the hours originally asked for by Sainsbury's after the club took it upon itself to make its own application. Mr Wonnacott said: "We say that, if the application - which we agreed to make - had been withdrawn, that would have exhausted that appeal. "The effect of that appeal being exhausted would have been that the cut-off date had occurred, and we would have had a right to serve the termination notice (on the club). "That is why I said previously that withdrawing the application would have been an awful trap. "It would have been the most self-interested thing we could have done." Mr Wonnacott also said he had been made aware of a discussion in an online forum between Rovers' supporters who were following the case, in which one fan had asked: "When is a cut-off date not a cut-off date?"The barrister added: "That, in a nutshell, is our position. "If there is a planning refusal at the end of the process, then the cut-off date occurs and we have a right to terminate the agreement." Earlier, the court was told that Steve Gosling, a sound expert hired by Bristol Rovers, prepared a report offering suggestions to reduce noise from the proposed store following the council's refusal to change delivery times. Mr Wonnacott suggested there was 'little difference' between the measures in his report and those in Sainsbury's application - the latter of which he said had been approved by both Rovers and their planning consultants. The barrister said: "I am going to suggest to you that your measures were little more than a figleaf to give the council an excuse to allow an application it had previously refused." Mr Gosling replied: "No, that is not what happened." The hearing continues. Read more: www.bristolpost.co.uk/Sainsbury-s-tells-judge-pulled-contract-Rovers/story-26542581-detail/story.htmlDepends what the judge sees as the end of the planning. As rovers were able to then get the change in delivery hours and were offered the appeal by the council before basically previously admitting they wanted out and not bothering to appeal.
|
|
|
Post by 95gas on May 20, 2015 19:37:14 GMT
Come on Severncider, I wanna hear some good news...
|
|
|
Post by Gas-Ed on May 20, 2015 19:38:05 GMT
I always said that I would believe it when sat in it. None of us know the facts, so it's impossible to call it. I guess we just have to sit tight. When will a decision be made?
|
|
|
Post by 95gas on May 20, 2015 19:41:08 GMT
Although, we were saying before that it may not look as pretty when we're being questioned so I guess it was always going to look bad when Shamesbury's started to ask questions.
I guess it's like taking an early 2-0 lead and now they're pressing trying to come back. It's always going to feel nicer going second cause it feels better to draw coming from 2 goals down rather than throwing away a 2 goal lead. In reality it's still level and both teams are in the same position. Let's just see who can nick the winner.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on May 20, 2015 19:42:14 GMT
Sainsbury's tells judge they could have pulled out of contract with Rovers to buy Memorial StadiumBy The Bristol Post | Posted: May 20, 2015 A judge was told that Sainsbury's would have set an "awful trap" for Bristol Rovers if it had withdrawn a planning application for a new store at the Memorial Stadium. Mark Wonnacott QC argued that if the supermarket chain had pulled out of its bid to change Bristol City Council's restrictions on the proposed store's delivery hours, it would have been able to end its agreement with the club at that point. He added that as it was, Sainsbury's did not end the contract until after the council refused to alter the delivery times - which he said released them from the agreement. The club has previously argued that the supermarket chain should have withdrawn the application and tried again at a later date, when it became apparent the council would not alter the delivery hours - amid intense local pressure and while a judicial review by TRASHorfield was ongoing. The council eventually agreed to the hours originally asked for by Sainsbury's after the club took it upon itself to make its own application. Mr Wonnacott said: "We say that, if the application - which we agreed to make - had been withdrawn, that would have exhausted that appeal. "The effect of that appeal being exhausted would have been that the cut-off date had occurred, and we would have had a right to serve the termination notice (on the club). "That is why I said previously that withdrawing the application would have been an awful trap. "It would have been the most self-interested thing we could have done." Mr Wonnacott also said he had been made aware of a discussion in an online forum between Rovers' supporters who were following the case, in which one fan had asked: "When is a cut-off date not a cut-off date?"The barrister added: "That, in a nutshell, is our position. "If there is a planning refusal at the end of the process, then the cut-off date occurs and we have a right to terminate the agreement." Earlier, the court was told that Steve Gosling, a sound expert hired by Bristol Rovers, prepared a report offering suggestions to reduce noise from the proposed store following the council's refusal to change delivery times. Mr Wonnacott suggested there was 'little difference' between the measures in his report and those in Sainsbury's application - the latter of which he said had been approved by both Rovers and their planning consultants. The barrister said: "I am going to suggest to you that your measures were little more than a figleaf to give the council an excuse to allow an application it had previously refused." Mr Gosling replied: "No, that is not what happened." The hearing continues. Read more: www.bristolpost.co.uk/Sainsbury-s-tells-judge-pulled-contract-Rovers/story-26542581-detail/story.htmlDepends what the judge sees as the end of the planning. As rovers were able to then get the change in delivery hours and were offered the appeal by the council before basically previously admitting they wanted out and not bothering to appeal. I think Sainsburys point was Rovers were happy with the application that was submitted and then rejected Once rejected there were within their right to ens the contract. I guess then Rovers did their own thing to try and make it right for us
|
|
|
Post by I Voted For Kodos on May 20, 2015 19:42:48 GMT
" If there is a planning refusal at the end of the process, then the cut-off date occurs and we have a right to terminate the agreement." This is what I think it boils down to. The definition of when the application process ended. It should be simple but all of the appeals made by TRASH etc, and the delivery hours confused the issue. There was an initial refusal on delivery hours but then we successfully appealed. So, did the process end before or after our successful appeal?
|
|
|
Post by rking89 on May 20, 2015 19:45:08 GMT
" If there is a planning refusal at the end of the process, then the cut-off date occurs and we have a right to terminate the agreement." This is what I think it boils down to. The definition of when the application process ended. It should be simple but all of the appeals made by TRASH etc, and the delivery hours confused the issue. There was an initial refusal on delivery hours but then we successfully appealed. So, did the process end before or after our successful appeal? Depends how long between the "process ending" and termination given too. Think it's going to be compensation awarded which won't help up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 19:45:57 GMT
" If there is a planning refusal at the end of the process, then the cut-off date occurs and we have a right to terminate the agreement." This is what I think it boils down to. The definition of when the application process ended. It should be simple but all of the appeals made by TRASH etc, and the delivery hours confused the issue. There was an initial refusal on delivery hours but then we successfully appealed. So, did the process end before or after our successful appeal? Surely appeal is just part of the process. Also,that When is a cut off quote was lifted off here. Hello Sainsburies. Did you lie to me? I will never shop with you again and I urge 30,000 other to do the same.
|
|
|
Post by pucklegas on May 20, 2015 19:46:52 GMT
I think it is better not to answer or speculate to the last post, otherwise Wonnacott will use that to batter us with tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on May 20, 2015 19:46:58 GMT
Is it not normal for supermarkets to crack on with planning, build and even opening before revisiting the appeal with opening delivery times? I have no idea what's going on here, just have to wait and see I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 19:47:10 GMT
" If there is a planning refusal at the end of the process, then the cut-off date occurs and we have a right to terminate the agreement." This is what I think it boils down to. The definition of when the application process ended. It should be simple but all of the appeals made by TRASH etc, and the delivery hours confused the issue. There was an initial refusal on delivery hours but then we successfully appealed. So, did the process end before or after our successful appeal? I would ask exactly the same question because what I have read on here does' not make that issue clear.
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on May 20, 2015 19:47:36 GMT
We started with Toni Watola continuing to being questioned by Sainsbury’s QC.
He was firstly questioned about some of the Contract conditions, to which the Judge intervened saying it was unfair to ask TW questions which were not his forte and she indicated that any answer he gave would be taken with a “pinch of salt” as his answers, through no fault of him, may not be correct. They then turned to financial aspects and TW was in his element and gave forthright answers with confidence to all the questions raised. His questioning finished at 12.30, much to the surprise of BRFC legal team, who expected it to go on a lot longer and be more intense. They felt that Sainsbury had not landed any “hits” on TW or BRFC.
I will not go through all the items raised as most were of a very technical nature and refereed to various contract conditions and I have no idea of any of the Contract conditions. A further two witnesses for BRFC were called and their evidence only lasted about 15 minutes each and again were of a technical nature regarding acoustic levels and the sale of The Mem. We were so far ahead of time to what was expected, that a further two witnesses were told to turn up tomorrow.
It was agreed that Sainsbury’s QC could start his closing submission, subject to the evidence of the two remaining witnesses. Their QC then stated to go through the conditions in the Contract, detailing where in his opinion BRFC had failed to met their obligations. He highlighted various timings that he thought we had failed to meet which would have the effect of voiding the Contract. He continued until 14.12 when the case closed for the day.
In my non legal mind, I was beginning to feel that he was stacking up “points” against us and it began to give me concerns. I again reiterate I do not have a legal background. Having said that, in my opinion we may have less than a 50/50 chance of winning this.
I will not be bothering to turn up tomorrow or Friday as the summing up is going to be very technical and will go over my head. I’m sorry if this is not so positive but I have to be honest on what I have heard.
To raise hopes, apparently this judge is known for giving Judgements on how she feels a Contract should be interpreted but in my opinion this is fraught with dangers as Sainsbury will no doubt appeal any such decision.
This case simple revolves around was the Contract “watertight” and Sainsbury's QC said it was more like a “colander case”.
Sorry to sound pessimistic.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on May 20, 2015 19:52:03 GMT
I'm just cracking up at the idea that Sainsbury's barrister goes home at night and reads this forum in order to find pithy comments he can use in court.
|
|
|
Post by rking89 on May 20, 2015 19:53:12 GMT
Thanks for that Sevencider good to read again. Hearing what our barrister has said in the opening statements compared to theirs will be interesting to hear our closing statements as there will be a lot more points where they have deceived and broken the contract Sainsbury's end too.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on May 20, 2015 19:54:31 GMT
We started with Toni Watola continuing to being questioned by Sainsbury’s QC. He was firstly questioned about some of the Contract conditions, to which the Judge intervened saying it was unfair to ask TW questions which were not his forte and she indicated that any answer he gave would be taken with a “pinch of salt” as his answers, through no fault of him, may not be correct. They then turned to financial aspects and TW was in his element and gave forthright answers with confidence to all the questions raised. His questioning finished at 12.30, much to the surprise of BRFC legal team, who expected it to go on a lot longer and be more intense. They felt that Sainsbury had not landed any “hits” on TW or BRFC. I will not go through all the items raised as most were of a very technical nature and refereed to various contract conditions and I have no idea of any of the Contract conditions. A further two witnesses for BRFC were called and their evidence only lasted about 15 minutes each and again were of a technical nature regarding acoustic levels and the sale of The Mem. We were so far ahead of time to what was expected, that a further two witnesses were told to turn up tomorrow. It was agreed that Sainsbury’s QC could start his closing submission, subject to the evidence of the two remaining witnesses. Their QC then stated to go through the conditions in the Contract, detailing where in his opinion BRFC had failed to met their obligations. He highlighted various timings that he thought we had failed to meet which would have the effect of voiding the Contract. He continued until 14.12 when the case closed for the day. In my non legal mind, I was beginning to feel that he was stacking up “points” against us and it began to give me concerns. I again reiterate I do not have a legal background. Having said that, in my opinion we may have less than a 50/50 chance of winning this. I will not be bothering to turn up tomorrow or Friday as the summing up is going to be very technical and will go over my head. I’m sorry if this is not so positive but I have to be honest on what I have heard. To raise hopes, apparently this judge is known for giving Judgements on how she feels a Contract should be interpreted but in my opinion this is fraught with dangers as Sainsbury will no doubt appeal any such decision. This case simple revolves around was the Contract “watertight” and Sainsbury's QC said it was more like a “colander case”. Sorry to sound pessimistic. Thanks for the time and effort. Appreciated
|
|
|
Post by 95gas on May 20, 2015 19:56:02 GMT
I'm just cracking up at the idea that Sainsbury's barrister goes home at night and reads this forum in order to find pithy comments he can use in court. Agreed. If he reads this then - GIVE US OUR EFFING STADIUM!!!
|
|
|
Post by holmesgas1 on May 20, 2015 19:57:38 GMT
Thanks Sevencider, good info, but to be honest we only heard the Sainsbury version this afternoon, thus not surprised it's raised doubts. Lawyers are very skilled at doing that. Black can become white in their world.
Hopefully our guy will do a great job on that tomorrow and leave the court knowing Sainsbury's failed both in contractual law, as well in spirit.
Only time will tell but there is still plenty of hope.
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on May 20, 2015 20:02:29 GMT
Thanks ever so much severncider for all your reporting.
Any clues re the reaction of "our team" to today's hearing - body langauage of NH & TW etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 20:03:12 GMT
Thank you Severncider - all your time and effort is very much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 20, 2015 20:10:07 GMT
The comment was lifted from the other forum, seems really bizarre to refer to that in a court room!
From my understanding of the writ published in the B Post Sainsbury's were forced to enter the delivery hours appeal by the threat of the writ being issued, if the contract had already expired at that point why did they appear to continue to support the appeal rather than just let Rovers serve the writ?
As the previous poster suggests let's see our barrister's response before we draw any conclusions which way this case will go.
If we do lose we can thank BCC for turning down the extended delivery hours pp & for Rovers Legal Advisors for allowing the onerous conditions to be included in the first place.
|
|