CCFC director says court case "regrettable" (1 Viewer)

SimonGilbert said:

Mark Labovitch says, personally, he thinks the Highs v Sisu case was "regrettable".

Full story here:
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-director-says-higgs-6922013

*edit: excuse the typo in the thread headline!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

You've gotta love this line:

I hope the charity can get on with its work in the community. Certainly, we would rather be running a football club than dealing in litigation.”

"Comedy Gold"

Can't help but have a dig can he.
Why is it everything he has said there makes me angry and is almost completely the opposite of the truth...

"Incredible scenes, comedy like this will never be beaten. I'm of to Walsgrave hospital for an entire set of new ribs and a change of pants, because I literally shit myself laughing so hard."

Simon : Is there something wrong with the CET website?

Good old Joy . Next thing they might suggest a statue to the great lady .:sarcasm:

When sisu go we should keep ML. He's a poor man's Boris Johnson and I for one would miss his ramblings. Comedy gold and he doesn't cost us a penny. Apparently.

Can't get the Site to bloody load been playing up all day.

The Gentleman said:

You've gotta love this line:

I hope the charity can get on with its work in the community. Certainly, we would rather be running a football club than dealing in litigation.”

Click to expand...

It's a dig. In fairness, on this occasion, the charity took SISU to court.

always best to take a leaf out of dick turpins book ,and wear a mask when trying to rob people ,saves telling lies and having to bullshit after you fail

Anyone able to paste It ,hope you don't mind Simon.

fernandopartridge said:

It's a dig. In fairness, on this occasion, the charity took SISU to court.

Click to expand...

Did I imagine It or did someone in among all that blurb suggest the small claims court might have proved more successful.

Simon you should have asked him when the fans forum with him and Steve Brookfield is?

wingy said:

Did I imagine It or did someone in among all that blurb suggest the small claims court might have proved more successful.

Click to expand...

I think the counter claim probably meant that it couldn't be heard there?

So Mr Labovitch appears to have missed the fact that the judge said he was going to come to the same conclusion as the one suggested by the Sisu lawyer i.e. everyone pays their own costs. Would the Sisu costs have been higher because they had 8 lawyers in court?

Also why is he commenting on it and not working on more important things like our new stadium, or our club for that matter.

Yey loaded!!

It's "regrettable" in their eyes because they lost....hopefully the news in June will be the same

I can't see anything underhand from the timeline, other than maybe withholding the rent to drive the price down.

James Smith said:

So Mr Labovitch appears to have missed the fact that the judge said he was going to come to the same conclusion as the one suggested by the Sisu lawyer i.e. everyone pays their own costs. Would the Sisu costs have been higher because they had 8 lawyers in court?

Also why is he commenting on it and not working on more important things like our new stadium, or our club for that matter.

Click to expand...

Yes, but before you get to enthusiastic you should realise it was Higgs barrister who had trouble agreeing:

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: You take instructions and I will sit
7 here unless anybody asks me othe
rwise. (Pause)
8 MR THOMPSON: My instructions are si
mple, given that there's
9 obviously been a judgment in bot
h directions, that there
10 could be no order as to costs.
That would be an order
11 that we would be content with.
I don't know whether
12 Mr Brennan has some other sugges
tion.
13 MR BRENNAN: My Lord, I wish life wa
s so simple, but the
14 test isn't simplicity; the test
is justice.
15 This was an ordinary County
Court claim, which
16 shouldn't have been brought on t
he basis that it was
17 brought and could and should hav
e been defended in the
18 counterclaim on the narrow basis
which has ultimately
19 succeeded. In the event, SISU s
ought to defend the case
20 inter alia on another basis, whi
ch was predicated on
21 stinging criticisms of the trust
ees' conduct, which were
22 unwarranted.
23 As a matter of principle I s
ay that the appropriate
24 order as to costs is that we sho
uld have to pay SISU the
25 proper and reasonable costs that
it would have incurred
157

1 had it defended the case on a pr
oper basis without
2 making the unwarranted criticism
s and, in those
3 circumstances, I would invite th
e court to grant SISU
4 their costs of the claim, less a
deduction, which, as
5 best you can, you think meets th
e justice of that case,
6 and order SISU to pay the costs
of the counterclaim.
7 Unfortunately, it's very dif
ficult to unravel it and
8 the matter will have to be put o
ff to a costs officer,
9 but the costs officer, will need
some guidance --
10 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: You might end u
p worse off than on
11 Mr Thompson's proposal. I know
that's not the test of
12 what I should do, but ...
13 MR BRENNAN: My instructing solicito
r is rather closer to
14 the costs than I am, so perhaps
I can take --
15 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Yes. It's not
obvious what the costs
16 are of the counterclaim and clai
m except, up to the time
17 there's a counterclaim, of cours
e, there weren't any
18 costs of that.
19 MR BRENNAN: Yes, I follow that.
20 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Once there was
a counterclaim...
21 MR BRENNAN: The claim rather took s
econd place thereafter.
22 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: They were both
sort of entangled with
23 each other to some extent. The
claim has obviously
24 persisted for another day at the
other end as well.
25 You have two days at the other e
nd.
158



1 MR BRENNAN: As I say, my instructin
g solicitor is closer to
2 costs. (Pause)
3 My Lord, these are not insig
nificant sums. I know
4 it's 4.40, but could I ask for f
ive minutes?
5 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Of course you m
ay. Call me back in
6 when you're ready.
7 (4.41 pm)
8 (A short break
)
9 (4.47 pm)
10 MR BRENNAN: My Lord, I'm very grate
ful for the extra time.
11 Mr Thompson's suggestion is a se
nsible one and we wish
12 to agree it.
13 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Well, I think i
t is the right
14 conclusion. I would have come t
o it anyway.

Godiva said:

Yes, but before you get to enthusiastic you should realise it was Higgs barrister who had trouble agreeing:

9 (4.47 pm)
10 MR BRENNAN: My Lord, I'm very grate
ful for the extra time.
11 Mr Thompson's suggestion is a se
nsible one and we wish
12 to agree it.
13 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Well, I think i
t is the right
14 conclusion. I would have come t
o it anyway.

Click to expand...

It's the last part that I thought was relevent, as the judge can just say tough if you don't agree - you're each paying your own costs and cos I'm the judge what I say goes.

James Smith said:

It's the last part that I thought was relevent, as the judge can just say tough if you don't agree - you're each paying your own costs and cos I'm the judge what I say goes.

Click to expand...

Yes, and sisu agreed immediately while higgs (at least their barrister) had a hard time come to the same conclusion.

Godiva said:

Yes, and sisu agreed immediately while higgs (at least their barrister) had a hard time come to the same conclusion.

Click to expand...

Yep, I wonder if the Higgs guy might have been angling along the lines that the Charity's case was slightly better than the counterclaim. I think when he had a few minutes to reconsider he realised that it was a pointless argument. SISU's QC was just a bit sharper by the sound of it. They both lost, in effect, pay your own costs!

Edit: The one thing that it wasn't was a magnaminous gesture. In truth I fell for that yesterday until I read the Judge's decision.

Godiva said:

Yes, and sisu agreed immediately while higgs (at least their barrister) had a hard time come to the same conclusion.

Click to expand...

Yeah don't suspect we'll know why the Higgs barrister was needing to take instruction. Maybe the Higgs had higher costs than we might think or he wanted to double check with his solicitor that they were okay with that. Bit easier for the Sisu lawyer to agree to it as he was the one who suggested it in the first place.

Higgs were on the cheap knowing ful well SISU were not! SISU 8-2 4-1 or whatever probably paying 20-1

It is good to know that SISU are nothing to do with our club.

What a cock.

At least I am now completely convinced that sisu have no interest in the club, they wish to obtain the Ricoh complex, land and hotel for nowhere near its value and once they realise the owners are the Coventry citizens and elected members aren't able to sanction a giveaway as they would end up in prison they will cease to fund our club and we will be liquidated or sold.

Sky Blue Pete said:

At least I am now completely convinced that sisu have no interest in the club, they wish to obtain the Ricoh complex, land and hotel for nowhere near its value and once they realise the owners are the Coventry citizens and elected members aren't able to sanction a giveaway as they would end up in prison they will cease to fund our club and we will be liquidated or sold.

Click to expand...

Please be sold, please be sold, please be sold.

Sky Blue Pete said:

At least I am now completely convinced that sisu have no interest in the club, they wish to obtain the Ricoh complex, land and hotel for nowhere near its value and once they realise the owners are the Coventry citizens and elected members aren't able to sanction a giveaway as they would end up in prison they will cease to fund our club and we will be liquidated or sold.

Click to expand...

My only comment is that you say you have only now been convinced SISU have no interest in the club. I was convinced 12 months ago.
They do not care about the fans or the people of Coventry.

Labo: "Higgs v Sisu court battle was 'regrettable' "

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-director-says-higgs-6922013

I thought I spotted a bit of humility and humble pie from Labo when I started to read the above article.... "Mark Labovitch, CCFC non-executive director, said today that the action was brought by Sisu and not the football club and expressed his sorrow at the situation. He said: “I think it is very very regrettable. It is very sad the action should be brought when there’s no legal basis for it."

So far, so good.

However, he kind of blows it when he makes clear he isn't criticism SISU and apologising for their aggressive "tit for tat" counter-suit, but actually having a go at the Higgs: "“I don’t think, if you are a charity, you should be going around suing people unless you are extremely sure of your ground." Literally can't believe the nerve of the man. There was a legal basis for the case, which is why it took 2-3 days to resolve - unlike SISU's claim which was thrown out immediately.

He should be apologising on behalf of his cohorts for the unglodly mess that they alone have caused through their belligerence. But no, he goes even further... "“I think it’s extremely magnanimous of Joy (Seppala, Sisu boss) not to pursue costs from the charity."

Maybe he thinks we should put up a statue of her outside the new ground? Or maybe he didn't think that the reason Joy hasn't pursued costs is because there was a case to answer and they counter-sued and got laughed out of court. Either way, this is a long way from the grovelling that SISU owe every Coventry fan; it's more of the same passive-aggression and arrogance that has got them into this situation in the first place.


P.S. Sorry if thias has been covered alraedy in another thread, but couldn't see it

spider_ricoh said:

..... but actually having a go at the Higgs: "“I don’t think, if you are a charity, you should be going around suing people unless you are extremely sure of your ground." Literally can't believe the nerve of the man. There was a legal basis for the case, which is why it took 2-3 days to resolve - unlike SISU's claim which was thrown out immediately.

Click to expand...

Was their legal basis for the claim? Yes or No?

spider_ricoh said:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-director-says-higgs-6922013

I thought I spotted a bit of humility and humble pie from Labo when I started to read the above article.... "Mark Labovitch, CCFC non-executive director, said today that the action was brought by Sisu and not the football club and expressed his sorrow at the situation. He said: “I think it is very very regrettable. It is very sad the action should be brought when there’s no legal basis for it."

So far, so good.

However, he kind of blows it when he makes clear he isn't criticism SISU and apologising for their aggressive "tit for tat" counter-suit, but actually having a go at the Higgs: "“I don’t think, if you are a charity, you should be going around suing people unless you are extremely sure of your ground." Literally can't believe the nerve of the man. There was a legal basis for the case, which is why it took 2-3 days to resolve - unlike SISU's claim which was thrown out immediately.

He should be apologising on behalf of his cohorts for the unglodly mess that they alone have caused through their belligerence. But no, he goes even further... "“I think it’s extremely magnanimous of Joy (Seppala, Sisu boss) not to pursue costs from the charity."

Maybe he thinks we should put up a statue of her outside the new ground? Or maybe he didn't think that the reason Joy hasn't pursued costs is because there was a case to answer and they counter-sued and got laughed out of court. Either way, this is a long way from the grovelling that SISU owe every Coventry fan; it's more of the same passive-aggression and arrogance that has got them into this situation in the first place.


P.S. Sorry if thias has been covered alraedy in another thread, but couldn't see it

Click to expand...

They should put a statue of her outside the Ricoh. Would be a great reminder of why we ended up in Northampton.

fernandopartridge said:

Was their legal basis for the claim? Yes or No?

Click to expand...

Yes. There was a legal basis for a claim. But it was seen as both at fault for not following it all through although the wording was that costs would be paid. The result wasn't what most of us thought. It all depended on how it was argued.

And we all know that just because one side wins or a nil all draw as the judge called this one doesn't mean one side was right or wrong 100%.

Astute said:

Yes. There was a legal basis for a claim. But it was seen as both at fault for not following it all through although the wording was that costs would be paid. The result wasn't what most of us thought. It all depended on how it was argued.

And we all know that just because one side wins or a nil all draw as the judge called this one doesn't mean one side was right or wrong 100%.

Click to expand...

No, there wasn't. Hence the claim failed. The court cased assessed the legal basis and found there was none.