Grendel
Well-Known Member
What if Higgs only agreed to the transfer if the YB deal on the understanding that sisu were aware of the transfer? What then? Harris is under oath no backup needed.
Does a split between Higgs and CCC actually benefit SISU? Weren't they making out that everyone else was working together behind SISUs back to try and stich them up, if it turns out they don't get on then it would impact on that arguement.
As for SISU being kept informed what was happening then we need to know how that was supposedly done. If it was verbal it will come down to who the judge believes, if the CCC chap was supposed to have done a more formal notification then there will be some evidence to backup his claim.
I don't think it is a question of AEHC pointing fingers at CCC or its officers, more that PWKH and PH are not prepared to lie to cover up actions or inactions ...... ie they will answer truthfully.......... what was done or not done can not be altered
Possibly not, more likely not if this exclusivity period had ended - sounds like the Higgs were just being polite towards Sisu.
Its OK for Higgs to be deceived and lied to by the council is it?
What if Higgs only agreed to the transfer if the YB deal on the understanding that sisu were aware of the transfer? What then? Harris is under oath no backup needed.
But again that could be a moral rather than legal arguement. Unless there is a legal requirement to tell SISU what was happened it can't really be that much of an issue.
We don't actually know if SISU were told or not yet do we? SISU have said they weren't, Higgs have said as far as they know they were. Or have I missed something?
We don't actually know if SISU were told or not yet do we? SISU have said they weren't, Higgs have said as far as they know they were. Or have I missed something?
Is this going to come down to one persons word against anothers?
This West bloke hasn't had a chance to say whether he did or didn't tell Sisu, or was even required to (might not have been).
If it was deliberate deception its not very professional, guess the council bloke might respond. But its hardly war and peace is it? for this or the JR is it illegal not to inform Sisu or just a courtesy??
I beat you to that one see post #964But again that could be a moral rather than legal arguement. Unless there is a legal requirement to tell SISU what was happened it can't really be that much of an issue.
EDIT: and what if someone had told Labovich but he couldn't hear as he wasn't working for the right company that day
We don't actually know if SISU were told or not yet do we? SISU have said they weren't, Higgs have said as far as they know they were. Or have I missed something?
It can in Higgs wouldn't agree to it unless the condition was that sisu were aware. Of course that would be a huge issue.
How could a Coventry Local Authority lie to a Coventry Charity with whom it is in a formal legal relationship? How?
But that would be an issue between Higgs and CCC.
It doesn't matter if he was required to - he advised other Board members he did - why unless it was to deliberately deceive the other Board members? Harris is hardly going to lie is he?
I thought Harris said West said SISU had been informed when in fact West hadn't informed them.
Grendel seems absolutely enthralled by this case and thread LMFAO
The man hasn't had a chance to defend himself so we don't know what he did, said he did.
so whats the latest chaps? council have been proven to be liars?
Did the Higgs barrister raise any points of interests or rebut any points when questioning PWKH or PH. Did the Judge make any comments or seek clarification from either?
I thought Harris said West said SISU had been informed when in fact West hadn't informed them.
He might have asked Michael Byng to send them an email to let them know....
So far the only thing that has been determined beyond doubt is that SISU's counter claim has been thrown out by the judge.
I also assume you are outraged at a councillor lying to a charity? Yes?
Does anyone genuinely care less about this case? Its all totally pointless and irrelevant.
Agreed. However, for Harris to mention it in court then he must be pretty sure that's the way it happened.
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?