|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 26, 2016 20:55:21 GMT
I don't think that's the case in a Civil case, only new evidence relevant to the case can be induced, if the original trial Judge had decided evidence wasn't admissible I doubt we can issue an Application to get it included in the Appeal hearing as further evidence.
|
|
|
Post by lympstonegas on Jan 26, 2016 20:59:02 GMT
Rovers Chairman Nick Higgs emerges from the Royal Courts of Justice as the first session on day 1 ends. A jubilant Higgs announced to the waiting press: "There's chips for lunch!!!!" What an ugly lump! Care to post a picture of yourself on here do we can all make a judgement on you ? Thought not
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2016 21:41:31 GMT
Care to post a picture of yourself on here do we can all make a judgement on you ? Thought not View Attachment
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jan 27, 2016 9:34:34 GMT
Nothing to report from yesterday then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2016 9:40:38 GMT
Care to post a picture of yourself on here do we can all make a judgement on you ? Thought not pencil neck
|
|
|
Post by lpgas on Jan 27, 2016 9:53:17 GMT
When the Post first reported on the appeal their political editor wrote that any successful appeal would only provide us with compensation and would not rescind the original decision to enforce the contract. Is that a possibility or is this a case of enforcing the buy or not? totally wrong. If we win this appeal than it's the £30 million bit. If we want compensation then we have to take them to court again because that is a separate issue
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 27, 2016 10:32:29 GMT
Nothing to report from yesterday then? Think the B Post reporter must have fallen asleep during the afternoon session! As we only seem to have been given a half time report yesterday? At least they did a bit better than the OS.
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Jan 27, 2016 10:33:58 GMT
Did anything actually happen yesterday that I couldn't have achieved for a lot less money. It seems our very expensive legal team just stood there and told the judges that the original judge was wrong and that sainsburys only just won!! Lol!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2016 10:39:13 GMT
Nothing to report from yesterday then? This was posted by A More Piratey Game on the other forum yesterday:- "I was there for about 40 minutes this morning. Here's my take on it while I was there, plus below already C&Pd by PP on another thread It was, this time, in a proper court building. Old and with lots of shields and statues and vaulted ceilings. The courtroom itself is more prosaic though, and a little bit smaller than the one we had last time. We were in number 75, so there are plenty of them. I nodded at Nick and Toni when I went in (them probably thinking 'who's that bloke?'), and I saw one other Gashead there - a trainee barrister in his 60's who was there for parts of the original case. There were 23 people in the room, including 3 judges and 4 barristers in their matchday kit. There were also lots of people scribbling notes fairly actively - maybe ten of them. Ali Durden was also there. There are microphones all over the room, so best not eat crisps or pass wind or anything as it'll be picked up Nick looked a bit stressed to me - like I might if I had tens of millions of quid riding on the case. Or he might have stayed overnight and gone for a few scoops with Toni last night. The legalese was unsurprisingly arcane. I think the judges found it pretty nuanced - they looked pretty puzzled some of the time. Our brief, Mr Matthias, was up and taking them through it. At one point one of the judges raised his eyebrows at Mr David Matthias as if to say 'that's a pretty clever point you just made', although maybe also 'that's pretty smarty-pants' I don't know if Rovers won their application to submit new evidence, but I guess they did as there was talk about 'we knew x but couldn't discuss it as it wasn't part of our case or the other party's'. Our brief said that it was 'an extraordinary case' and that the original judge had cocked it up, though in the nicest possible way. 'In our respectful submission the learned judge was on a frolic of her own.....' 'erred in concluding....', sort of stuff. One precedent was discussed, and one of the judges suggested that the 'learned judge' in that case exhibited 'a piece of judicial exhuberance' There was a very technical discussion of estoppel and the Section 73 application. The estoppel arguments are apparently all new, or something - they weren't brought in last time. Our briefs said they saw the draft judgement and saw the error immediately. Our position is summarised in some 'post-judgement submissions' I considered giving them a verse of Irene, which would at least have livened it up a bit, but thought it might not help so I left quietly." Looks as though somebody else from there might be attending today.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jan 27, 2016 11:10:45 GMT
Nothing to report from yesterday then? This was posted by A More Piratey Game on the other forum yesterday:- "I was there for about 40 minutes this morning. Here's my take on it while I was there, plus below already C&Pd by PP on another thread It was, this time, in a proper court building. Old and with lots of shields and statues and vaulted ceilings. The courtroom itself is more prosaic though, and a little bit smaller than the one we had last time. We were in number 75, so there are plenty of them. I nodded at Nick and Toni when I went in (them probably thinking 'who's that bloke?'), and I saw one other Gashead there - a trainee barrister in his 60's who was there for parts of the original case. There were 23 people in the room, including 3 judges and 4 barristers in their matchday kit. There were also lots of people scribbling notes fairly actively - maybe ten of them. Ali Durden was also there. There are microphones all over the room, so best not eat crisps or pass wind or anything as it'll be picked up Nick looked a bit stressed to me - like I might if I had tens of millions of quid riding on the case. Or he might have stayed overnight and gone for a few scoops with Toni last night. The legalese was unsurprisingly arcane. I think the judges found it pretty nuanced - they looked pretty puzzled some of the time. Our brief, Mr Matthias, was up and taking them through it. At one point one of the judges raised his eyebrows at Mr David Matthias as if to say 'that's a pretty clever point you just made', although maybe also 'that's pretty smarty-pants' I don't know if Rovers won their application to submit new evidence, but I guess they did as there was talk about 'we knew x but couldn't discuss it as it wasn't part of our case or the other party's'. Our brief said that it was 'an extraordinary case' and that the original judge had cocked it up, though in the nicest possible way. 'In our respectful submission the learned judge was on a frolic of her own.....' 'erred in concluding....', sort of stuff. One precedent was discussed, and one of the judges suggested that the 'learned judge' in that case exhibited 'a piece of judicial exhuberance' There was a very technical discussion of estoppel and the Section 73 application. The estoppel arguments are apparently all new, or something - they weren't brought in last time. Our briefs said they saw the draft judgement and saw the error immediately. Our position is summarised in some 'post-judgement submissions' I considered giving them a verse of Irene, which would at least have livened it up a bit, but thought it might not help so I left quietly." Looks as though somebody else from there might be attending today. Thanks for the update and report Tilly.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 27, 2016 11:19:49 GMT
Did anything actually happen yesterday that I couldn't have achieved for a lot less money. It seems our very expensive legal team just stood there and told the judges that the original judge was wrong and that sainsburys only just won!! Lol! We could have sent DC to plead our case, although whether the Judges would have been impressed is another matter!
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Jan 27, 2016 12:57:55 GMT
Did anything actually happen yesterday that I couldn't have achieved for a lot less money. It seems our very expensive legal team just stood there and told the judges that the original judge was wrong and that sainsburys only just won!! Lol! One of two things applies to this scenario... - We're either totally in the right (legally) and will win hands down because we actually should have won first time or...
- It's like reading reviews of matches in the 2013/14 season...reasons for fans to have optimism but still going to get relegated unless something massively unexpected happens...
|
|
|
Post by Thatslife on Jan 27, 2016 13:00:14 GMT
When the Post first reported on the appeal their political editor wrote that any successful appeal would only provide us with compensation and would not rescind the original decision to enforce the contract. Is that a possibility or is this a case of enforcing the buy or not? totally wrong. If we win this appeal than it's the £30 million bit. If we want compensation then we have to take them to court again because that is a separate issue As you seem to be in the know, would it be the case that if we won and the contract had to be honoured ,then if both parties agreed a walk away payment would it need to be ratified by the court or not? Also if an agreement was reached before the verdict, would that need to be ratified by a court?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 27, 2016 13:11:35 GMT
If Rovers withdrew their Appeal (after coming to see some argeeement with Sainsbury's) that would end the Appeal hearing with the original Judgement still standing, but I can't see that happening now it's gone this far when we still seem to be arguing basically the same points.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jan 27, 2016 13:13:28 GMT
totally wrong. If we win this appeal than it's the £30 million bit. If we want compensation then we have to take them to court again because that is a separate issue As you seem to be in the know, would it be the case that if we won and the contract had to be honoured ,then if both parties agreed a walk away payment would it need to be ratified by the court or not? Also if an agreement was reached before the verdict, would that need to be ratified by a court? What does ratified mean?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 27, 2016 13:23:18 GMT
As you seem to be in the know, would it be the case that if we won and the contract had to be honoured ,then if both parties agreed a walk away payment would it need to be ratified by the court or not? Also if an agreement was reached before the verdict, would that need to be ratified by a court? What does ratified mean? Aprroved/Agreed/Rubber stamped
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jan 27, 2016 13:28:07 GMT
Aprroved/Agreed/Rubber stamped Right, got it, thanks. So we've won then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2016 13:32:29 GMT
Aprroved/Agreed/Rubber stamped Right, got it, thanks. So we've won then? Lol I honestly thought you were joking when you asked!!
|
|
|
Post by xplosivgas on Jan 27, 2016 13:38:05 GMT
This was posted by A More Piratey Game on the other forum yesterday:- "I was there for about 40 minutes this morning. Here's my take on it while I was there, plus below already C&Pd by PP on another thread It was, this time, in a proper court building. Old and with lots of shields and statues and vaulted ceilings. The courtroom itself is more prosaic though, and a little bit smaller than the one we had last time. We were in number 75, so there are plenty of them. I nodded at Nick and Toni when I went in (them probably thinking 'who's that bloke?'), and I saw one other Gashead there - a trainee barrister in his 60's who was there for parts of the original case. There were 23 people in the room, including 3 judges and 4 barristers in their matchday kit. There were also lots of people scribbling notes fairly actively - maybe ten of them. Ali Durden was also there. There are microphones all over the room, so best not eat crisps or pass wind or anything as it'll be picked up Nick looked a bit stressed to me - like I might if I had tens of millions of quid riding on the case. Or he might have stayed overnight and gone for a few scoops with Toni last night. The legalese was unsurprisingly arcane. I think the judges found it pretty nuanced - they looked pretty puzzled some of the time. Our brief, Mr Matthias, was up and taking them through it. At one point one of the judges raised his eyebrows at Mr David Matthias as if to say 'that's a pretty clever point you just made', although maybe also 'that's pretty smarty-pants' I don't know if Rovers won their application to submit new evidence, but I guess they did as there was talk about 'we knew x but couldn't discuss it as it wasn't part of our case or the other party's'. Our brief said that it was 'an extraordinary case' and that the original judge had cocked it up, though in the nicest possible way. 'In our respectful submission the learned judge was on a frolic of her own.....' 'erred in concluding....', sort of stuff. One precedent was discussed, and one of the judges suggested that the 'learned judge' in that case exhibited 'a piece of judicial exhuberance' There was a very technical discussion of estoppel and the Section 73 application. The estoppel arguments are apparently all new, or something - they weren't brought in last time. Our briefs said they saw the draft judgement and saw the error immediately. Our position is summarised in some 'post-judgement submissions' I considered giving them a verse of Irene, which would at least have livened it up a bit, but thought it might not help so I left quietly." Looks as though somebody else from there might be attending today. Thanks for the update and report Tilly. The most intriguing part of the update was the 60 year old trainee barrister!
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jan 27, 2016 13:43:58 GMT
Right, got it, thanks. So we've won then? Lol I honestly thought you were joking when you asked!! High end private education doesn't count for much. When you're thick, you're thick.
|
|