|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on Jul 13, 2015 12:23:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by fabregas on Jul 13, 2015 19:35:09 GMT
Been off the forum (and matches) due to an injury for last 12 months - not long after Iregistered in fact. Had the same user name on the official forum until it was shut down.
Anyway, I've read the full 39 pages, including the annexe, and am staggered how short and sweet the actual judgement is. I quote:
"Conclusion
156. Accordingly I find that Sainsbury’s must succeed because of the construction of Schedule 1 to the Agreement [2.11] which seems to me to be an insuperable barrier to the Club. If this is wrong (and I do not think it is), I find that the Club succeeds."
What sort of judgement is that? I think I'm right in siding with Sainsbury, but if I'm wrong then I find in favour of The Gas. Talk about hedging your bets!
|
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Jul 13, 2015 19:40:58 GMT
Been off the forum (and matches) due to an injury for last 12 months - not long after Iregistered in fact. Had the same user name on the official forum until it was shut down. Anyway, I've read the full 39 pages, including the annexe, and am staggered how short and sweet the actual judgement is. I quote: "Conclusion 156. Accordingly I find that Sainsbury’s must succeed because of the construction of Schedule 1 to the Agreement [2.11] which seems to me to be an insuperable barrier to the Club. If this is wrong (and I do not think it is), I find that the Club succeeds." What sort of judgement is that? I think I'm right in siding with Sainsbury, but if I'm wrong then I find in favour of The Gas. Talk about hedging your bets! So she doesn't really know but thinks Sainsbury's has a better argument? |
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Jul 13, 2015 19:41:52 GMT
So, an appeal would only need to change this one point ?
|
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Jul 13, 2015 19:49:09 GMT
If you read 2.11 it says that the buyer will be obliged to appeal against a planning refusel if the stadium permission had already been granted. Was that not the case?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 20:04:51 GMT
Been off the forum (and matches) due to an injury for last 12 months - not long after Iregistered in fact. Had the same user name on the official forum until it was shut down. Anyway, I've read the full 39 pages, including the annexe, and am staggered how short and sweet the actual judgement is. I quote: "Conclusion 156. Accordingly I find that Sainsbury’s must succeed because of the construction of Schedule 1 to the Agreement [2.11] which seems to me to be an insuperable barrier to the Club. If this is wrong (and I do not think it is), I find that the Club succeeds." What sort of judgement is that? I think I'm right in siding with Sainsbury, but if I'm wrong then I find in favour of The Gas. Talk about hedging your bets! welcome back |
|
|
|
Post by RD on Jul 13, 2015 20:08:40 GMT
Firstly, welcome back fabregas - I certainly remember you from the old OF. Secondly, thank you for reading the document and for raising this point. I guess it's a little easier to understand why an appeal may look more tempting to Nick now? |
|
|
|
Post by gwengers on Jul 13, 2015 20:17:12 GMT
Reading it though, and I have done so twice... It is incredibly frustrating that it seems to hinge on this. It seems to get into pedantic ifs/buts/whats about what an appeal constitutes and the burden that was on Sainsburys to actually do anything.
It is abundantly clear that they acted terribly and were looking for a way out from an early point. This is apparent from:
... Which is pretty disgusting in its own right. To see Sainsburys declaring that they have been found to be acting in good faith is pathetic.
Another victory for the big guy.
I can see why Higgs wants to appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Jul 13, 2015 20:25:52 GMT
Fibbing little turds !
|
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Jul 13, 2015 20:31:38 GMT
Reading it though, and I have done so twice... It is incredibly frustrating that it seems to hinge on this. It seems to get into pedantic ifs/buts/whats about what an appeal constitutes and the burden that was on Sainsburys to actually do anything. It is abundantly clear that they acted terribly and were looking for a way out from an early point. This is apparent from: ... Which is pretty disgusting in its own right. To see Sainsburys declaring that they have been found to be acting in good faith is pathetic. Another victory for the big guy. I can see why Higgs wants to appeal. Can this be put in the evening Post ? |
|
|
|
Post by gwengers on Jul 13, 2015 20:36:43 GMT
Can this be put in the evening Post ? The evening post probably struggle to accurately copy and paste off facebook and twitter, let alone scour a legal document. |
|
|
|
Post by fabregas on Jul 13, 2015 20:37:22 GMT
Firstly, welcome back fabregas - I certainly remember you from the old OF. Secondly, thank you for reading the document and for raising this point. I guess it's a little easier to understand why an appeal may look more tempting to Nick now? Thanks RoverDrive and all forum members. Held back from posting during my recovery as I found it too disappointing not to be able to get to matches, although I was lurking a lot. Targeting Phil Kite's Testimonial as first game back. Back to the point in hand. The judge has certainly opened the door for an appeal, and, if you read it in a certain way, is almost suggesting it should be challenged. Guess it comes down to two things: 1. Our legal advice on the interpretation of the judgement and chances of success. 2. Where the money comes from to fund an appeal. if the BoD put their hands in their pocket to pay for it, without saddling the club with more debt, then fair play to them. What is clear from the Judge's comments, before reaching her verdict, is that Sainsbury's wanted to pull out quite soon after signing the contract. They then used every conceivable measure to stall any progress - to such an extent they didn't fight the judicial review, appeal against the delivery hours restrictions, apply for the s73 etc. This caused Rovers to seek an injunction in order to fight some of the cases on their behalf as the contract said these things could only be done with their agreement, which they refused. BRFC won the injunction to fight, and pay, for some of these measures themselves - including the noise abatement measures. This utterly stinks IMO, and Sainsbury has knowingly been trying to shaft us for over two years. Anybody know if Nectar points can be used to pay for legal experts? I, for one, will never shop with Sainsbury's again. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jul 13, 2015 21:37:55 GMT
The Judge was clearly a fan of the Sainsbury's lawyer Mr Wonnacott. She says on page 30 para 151 "Mr Wonnacott puts it neatly in his closing submissions.."
And then basically goes on to agree with him that even if they did nothing to help in the JR, did not bother to appeal after their half-hearted first attempt to extend delivery hours, and had no interest in assisting us in actually getting the delivery hours appeal approved, then they had done all they needed to do. What BRFC did was too late.
He said: "The remedy of the innocent party" (meaning in a case like this) "is damages only".
She agrees roughly "even if all other conditions remained unfulfilled" our only option is damages.
In other words everything they did was legal, but not decent, honest or truthful.
So they can walk away, and we have to sue them for damages if we want any justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jul 14, 2015 5:33:35 GMT
So, an appeal would only need to change this one point ? In theory yes. But the judge has said it was a basly drafted contract full of codswallop really. Any appeal means another judge has to make sense of it and decide Justice Proudman was fundamentally wrong. Nof.so simple |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jul 14, 2015 5:37:54 GMT
The Judge was clearly a fan of the Sainsbury's lawyer Mr Wonnacott. She says on page 30 para 151 "Mr Wonnacott puts it neatly in his closing submissions.." And then basically goes on to agree with him that even if they did nothing to help in the JR, did not bother to appeal after their half-hearted first attempt to extend delivery hours, and had no interest in assisting us in actually getting the delivery hours appeal approved, then they had done all they needed to do. What BRFC did was too late. He said: "The remedy of the innocent party" (meaning in a case like this) "is damages only". She agrees roughly "even if all other conditions remained unfulfilled" our only option is damages. In other words everything they did was legal, but not decent, honest or truthful. So they can walk away, and we have to sue them for damages if we want any justice. Also there weak appeal for delivery hours had to be agred to by us before submission. The failure of this made it difficult to meet that condition before the cut off date. Maybe if we had asked for a better appeal based on our own advice then we may have been okay. I guess we just went.with Sainsburys that it was ok |
|
|
|
Post by fabregas on Jul 14, 2015 10:29:04 GMT
Seeking damages may be a better route than appealing the decision. It's clear from the evidence that Sainsbury's did not play fair IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by mehewmagic on Jul 14, 2015 10:50:01 GMT
Been off the forum (and matches) due to an injury for last 12 months - not long after Iregistered in fact. Had the same user name on the official forum until it was shut down. welcome back mush! |
|
|
|
Post by lpgas on Jul 14, 2015 11:00:25 GMT
If I was Higgs I would definitely appeal. I have often wondered how we know the judges are "fair?" For all we know she may have shares in Sainsburies
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 14, 2015 11:06:08 GMT
I think we need a sound reason to appeal not just for the sake of it in case the original judge got it wrong! Looking how cut & dried this judgment was you do wonder why we defended the action in the first place. Let's face facts Sainsbury's inserted a clever get out clause into their contract and then used it when they wanted to.
|
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Jul 14, 2015 11:45:08 GMT
If I was Higgs I would definitely appeal. I have often wondered how we know the judges are "fair?" For all we know she may have shares in Sainsburies Having read the whole thing (and understanding some of it), there's little or no point as far as I can see...the ballgame was lost on 26th Sept 2013 when: I'm surprised Sainsbury's didn't pull the plug 20 working days after that, because they knew by that point they didn't want the site and didn't want to build the store. It seems like we then spent 6-9 months trying desperately to keep them onside (even though we knew they didn't really want it any more either) and the next next 9 months building up to the inevitable lawsuit. |
|
