Search results

CCFC and a charity suffer

Hopefully 1 am brings someone new who can genuinely buy ACL and know how to conduct business in a genuine trustworthy upfront manner.

Yes it does it was because they put in a pathetic offer. Not because they just walked away.

So the conspiracy was with Haskell?

Everyone gets ripped off by the legal teams

Yes it is a fact or me now no longer under debate. They tried to rip them off for 3.5 million by under valuing their shares whilst not paying the rent. Then announcing in the public that ACL were going out of business

No case to answer tends to get kicked out pretty quickly you know like the first day. Three days if debating and a judge saying you both list interest. Says there was a case to answer.

Personally I think no chance as they counter claimed and it was kicked out of hours. If they had just defended themselves and said ACL also lost interest like us around August I bet they would have got full costs. Instead they said we still really wanted to do the deal we wanted to pay 2...

I wouldn't include the top one in your paragraph. To me that's a hammer blow for SISU no conspiracy. Maybe the SBT can take the part of the other conspiring party. I said in the middle of this thread I will not take too much Glee from this woeful performance from SISU this is just the main...

I amazed the judge did not rule against them for those comments alone!

I think a charity has to seek legal advice when someone owes them a debt. Then whatever the legal advice says they have to follow it.

Part of proving that is that they claim the council used the money whilst conspiring with others to get new owners. That is was not just a use of legal aid to save their interests.

They are

They charge by the hour

Yes but barristers like to use more words

ACL would be putting their hands in their pockets for 290k plus costs if SISU had won. Their conspiracy case was kicked out in a couple of hours.

I think so because they have said they are not insignificant

The conspiracy has to be after August 2012. This is when he says both sides lost interest in the deal. SISU claimed in this they lost interest because of the conspiracy (the same conspiracy that is the crux of the JR) So I ask again can this case be used in evidence for the JR?

Yes, however is that surprising SISU wanted to pay less than half price. I wonder what Higgs response would have been if SISU came back with the asking price?

If the judge says the deal failed by the end if August 2012 and never side had an appetite to complete the deal. SISU said ACL were conspiring with the council to buy the loan and that is why the deal fell through. This is also the crux of their JR. However the council plan was well after...