Simon Gilbert@TheSimonGilbert19sOn the legal representatives count it's Sisu 7-2 Higgs. I'm not sure if we'll get to the witnesses today at this pace. Time will tell.
Simon Gilbert@TheSimonGilbert19sOn the legal representatives count it's Sisu 7-2 Higgs. I'm not sure if we'll get to the witnesses today at this pace. Time will tell.
God I hate so much that "justice" is based on your resources.
Take your point, but at least in cases like this I'm not sure how much difference it will make. As long as the facts are represented, I think the judge is well placed to make a decision regardless of SISU's (supposed) legal muscle.
That's more lawyers there than players we signed the year we went down ain't it?!
It does make their complaints about turnover and profits seem a little silly when they are willing to spend so much on litigation.
So if SISU win it is just down to resources?
So if SISU win it is just down to resources?
So if SISU win it is just down to resources?
Is LAST going to be whistling all through the 2nd half??
stop defending them 7 solicitors or whatever is overkill
Not that again. Look youve quacked for months we know what sort of duck you are by now....How was that defending, it was asking a question?
Take your point, but at least in cases like this I'm not sure how much difference it will make. As long as the facts are represented, I think the judge is well placed to make a decision regardless of SISU's (supposed) legal muscle.
Sure and I hope so too that whoever deserves to win (morally) does so.
Either way though it's not right, sisu will (or at least they believe they will) get an advantage by spending so much on lawyers (or they wouldn't do it) and it dramatically increases the risks for the other party, if sisu win the charity will have to pay for all these costs (which are either unnecessary or giving sisu an advantage)
whoever is in the right here the charity having to fork out to pay for 7 lawyers is a bad thing that will prevent people being helped by the charity.
My point though was really just a general one, I hate that resources give you an advantage in court when it should just be about the truth and I feel that way both for civil and criminal cases.
I wonder if they have sneaked a dry cleaning invoice into their counter claim.Sure the judge will want to check that. I can see how you could rack up £29K in legal fees etc on this sort of thing but a breakdown of the £290K could be interesting reading. What odds on a large chunk of it being one part of SISU charging another part or payment for Fishers time?
Sure and I hope so too that whoever deserves to win (morally) does so.
Either way though it's not right, sisu will (or at least they believe they will) get an advantage by spending so much on lawyers (or they wouldn't do it) and it dramatically increases the risks for the other party, if sisu win the charity will have to pay for all these costs (which are either unnecessary or giving sisu an advantage)
whoever is in the right here the charity having to fork out to pay for 7 lawyers is a bad thing that will prevent people being helped by the charity.
My point though was really just a general one, I hate that resources give you an advantage in court when it should just be about the truth and I feel that way both for civil and criminal cases.
No argument from me there, and even less so when you look at things like how the threat of a defamation claim (for which there is no legal aid) can be used by those with enough money to silence dissent. (e.g. SISU v SBT, and the David Conn article. A scandal.)
The Otium part of that is interesting. from its incorporation in 2011 through to 31/05/13 then the only costs disclosed in the accounts is interest payable to ARVO and the write down of the loans made to CCFC H (they sourced the money from ARVO). The accounts say they have no employees. So how were there any costs during the period of negotiation with the charity in 2012?
In court now.
Judge is a bit of a badass. Grilling Sisu QC on point of argument before he starts!
I was once told by a barrister that used to work with me that a court case is nothing to do with the truth. It is one legal argument versus another. He was a criminal defence lawyer by trade and had to let the truth element go when defending people.
Didn't like being called a lawyer - "I'm a Barrister!"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?