|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 27, 2016 14:17:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jan 27, 2016 14:41:10 GMT
That just sounds like a re-telling of the original case. All very interesting as background, but it won't win an appeal. I assume they'll soon get to the part about why the judge got it wrong first time, and then slap in the additional evidence as the killer blow.
|
|
socrates
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,472
Member is Online
|
Post by socrates on Jan 27, 2016 14:55:23 GMT
That just sounds like a re-telling of the original case. All very interesting as background, but it won't win an appeal. I assume they'll soon get to the part about why the judge got it wrong first time, and then slap in the additional evidence as the killer blow. Sounds good
|
|
|
Post by mehewmagic on Jan 27, 2016 15:12:12 GMT
without going into all the legal arguments...
For me, the best thing about this appeal is that 3 very experienced judges at pretty much the top of their profession will get to rule over it. Mrs Justice Proudman was just a sole judge and the wording she used for her judgement hardly inspired confidence.
Cases have been over-turned before, and even then over-turned again at the Supreme Court. It is possible.
|
|
|
Post by pepsi on Jan 27, 2016 15:12:38 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? we have it here in thailand, fried rat, they cannot ponouce the r's
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2016 15:28:39 GMT
without going into all the legal arguments... For me, the best thing about this appeal is that 3 very experienced judges at pretty much the top of their profession will get to rule over it. Mrs Justice Proudman was just a sole judge and the wording she used for her judgement hardly inspired confidence. Cases have been over-turned before, and even then over-turned again at the Supreme Court. It is possible. Depends on if they are given leave to appeal the appeal
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 27, 2016 15:41:04 GMT
That just sounds like a re-telling of the original case. All very interesting as background, but it won't win an appeal. I assume they'll soon get to the part about why the judge got it wrong first time, and then slap in the additional evidence as the killer blow.Or don't as the case maybe, I starting to fear the Appeal wil be just a pointless excercise unless we can come up with something different to attack the original verdict.
|
|
|
Post by Thatslife on Jan 27, 2016 16:12:40 GMT
without going into all the legal arguments... For me, the best thing about this appeal is that 3 very experienced judges at pretty much the top of their profession will get to rule over it. Mrs Justice Proudman was just a sole judge and the wording she used for her judgement hardly inspired confidence. Cases have been over-turned before, and even then over-turned again at the Supreme Court. It is possible. The appeals court has to allow an appeal to the Supreme court, very rarely happens.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jan 27, 2016 16:40:08 GMT
That just sounds like a re-telling of the original case. All very interesting as background, but it won't win an appeal. I assume they'll soon get to the part about why the judge got it wrong first time, and then slap in the additional evidence as the killer blow. I guess they have to go over a lot of the same ground, but considering ‘we’ say the judge was fundamentally wrong and the Judge’s error was galringly obvious, I can wait to here what are argument for that is
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Jan 27, 2016 17:19:12 GMT
Only rovers could have 2 of the most important days in their history, be so bloody boring. Can't see the dvd highlights selling well for this one. Bring on March and the verdict.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2016 17:36:52 GMT
Case finished at 4 p.m. today
Verdict expected in March - no further comment from club until then.
|
|
|
Post by garystash on Jan 27, 2016 17:41:21 GMT
Case finished at 4 p.m. today Verdict expected in March - no further comment from club until then. Yeah I read that on the clubs' news page. Very brief statement, and doesn't inspire any sort of confidence in me!
|
|
|
Post by Gas-Ed on Jan 27, 2016 17:41:26 GMT
Roll on March!
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jan 27, 2016 17:41:27 GMT
So what was the Earth shattering argument to highlight the Judge's fundamental error that was glaringly obvious
|
|
|
Post by 2nd May 1990 on Jan 27, 2016 17:41:47 GMT
Classic! The case finishes and we don't have the tiniest morsel of extra information to base any hope of succeeding on! - and no further comment until the judgement from the club. I wonder if the Post will shed any light on it all? Not holding my breath.....
|
|
|
Post by garystash on Jan 27, 2016 17:43:04 GMT
So what was the Earth shattering argument to highlight the Judge's fundamental error that was glaringly obvious I guess you had to be there - doesn't look like the EP was!
|
|
|
Post by Strange Gas on Jan 27, 2016 17:44:45 GMT
No new evidence then?! Do we know if it was admissible even?
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jan 27, 2016 18:05:14 GMT
I wonder why it finished after just two days?
Perhaps we didn't come up with anything new, either evidence or argument. Sainsbury's wouldn't need to spend a day in court challenging old debates.
Just guessing of course. No doubt a match report will arrive from someone eventually.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2016 18:08:52 GMT
If they'd overturned the verdict they would not have cut it a day short. No UWE for us!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2016 18:10:36 GMT
This is the full statement from the OS:-
"Our appeal against the High Court decision in the Club’s dispute with Sainsbury’s, which was expected to take three days, ended this afternoon at 4.00pm after only two days. Rovers Chairman Nick Higgs said;"We were very pleased that we received a fair hearing and now the Judges have retired to consider their verdict, which is not expected until March."
No further comment on the case will be made until such time as a decision has been reached..."
|
|