The time window published for a decision on whether the Court of Appeal Judges would allow Sisu to bring an Appeal against the verdict in the Judicial Review expires tomorrow.
It appears that the decision will not be forthcoming, apparently there are many cases to be decided before this one gets consideration.
This rather makes a nonsense of publishing a timetable. It seems to be anyone's guess as to when this will actually be decided.
Isn't it all kind of an irrelevance now? Interesting perhaps, but what would it change for CCFC, or even ACL for that matter?
Just might change quite a lot?
Well at least I hope so but who knows?
Just might change quite a lot?
Well at least I hope so but who knows?
Hopefully they will rule that the football club is either shut down or relocated to Dublin for financial reasons. Then we can get on with watching Wasps.
What and Sisu win? Don't think so.
If it's for financial reasons then who would we be to stand in their way? It would be either do or die for the club and of course the sudden acceptance of sports franchises by the best supporters in the country would mean that some of the support would be happy to travel to games.
Hopefully they will rule that the football club is either shut down or relocated to Dublin for financial reasons. Then we can get on with watching Wasps.
If it's for financial reasons then who would we be to stand in their way? It would be either do or die for the club and of course the sudden acceptance of sports franchises by the best supporters in the country would mean that some of the support would be happy to travel to games.
Watching Cov in Dublin would be quite cool TBF. Maybe one match a season like the Prem will be doing in America
What like the ones who went to sixfields to support the lads.
Probably, the same large % who will go to games no matter what this season. Unlike some of the people having a go at people for going to Sixfields who don't bother to go at all themselves now we are back. (Not aimed at you btw)
Unfortunately you always get the few moaners no matter what.
Only know of one poster on here that did go on the Hill, but has always said he would not return and watch the team until Sisu had left, and fair play to him has stuck by his Morales.......
This is from InBrief.co.uk:
Frequently clients are anxious to know whether they can appeal in the event of an unsuccessful claim or defence long before their case is even heard. For others, it is the most pressing question after the judgment is pronounced. Some appeals can be brought as of right. Most other decisions can be appealed with permission. However, it is comparatively rare for decisions, particularly after trial, to be appealed. In recent times a total of about 1,600 appeals are completed each year in the Court of Appeal, of which just 25% are successful. Each year there are about 50 civil appeals to the House of Lords, of which about a third achieve some success. However in 2009, the judicial role of the House of Lords as the highest appeal court in the UK ended and from 1st October 2009, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom assumed jurisdiction on points of law for all civil law cases in the UK and all criminal cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Certainly sisu are not the only ones upset by a court decision and going by statistics alone they have a 25% chance of a successful outcome.
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/civil-court/civil-court-appeal.htm
From the same source:
The court of appeal may receive fresh evidence only if it is satisfied that such evidence:
- Could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the hearing;
- Would probably have an important influence on the result of the case; and
- Is apparently credible.
So maybe they could be granted permission to bring new evidence to the appeal?
This is from InBrief.co.uk:
Frequently clients are anxious to know whether they can appeal in the event of an unsuccessful claim or defence long before their case is even heard. For others, it is the most pressing question after the judgment is pronounced. Some appeals can be brought as of right. Most other decisions can be appealed with permission. However, it is comparatively rare for decisions, particularly after trial, to be appealed. In recent times a total of about 1,600 appeals are completed each year in the Court of Appeal, of which just 25% are successful. Each year there are about 50 civil appeals to the House of Lords, of which about a third achieve some success. However in 2009, the judicial role of the House of Lords as the highest appeal court in the UK ended and from 1st October 2009, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom assumed jurisdiction on points of law for all civil law cases in the UK and all criminal cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Certainly sisu are not the only ones upset by a court decision and going by statistics alone they have a 25% chance of a successful outcome.
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/civil-court/civil-court-appeal.htm
From the same source:
The court of appeal may receive fresh evidence only if it is satisfied that such evidence:
- Could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the hearing;
- Would probably have an important influence on the result of the case; and
- Is apparently credible.
So maybe they could be granted permission to bring new evidence to the appeal?
Surely the average success rate has nothing to do with their chances of success. It's the merit of their case, statistics don't come in to it.
In your expert opinion, given the judges summing up on what bases do they have a chance off winning the appeal other than an average win ratio?
You're right of course about the statistics - and I did say 'going by the numbers alone - trying to implicate the same.
I have no idea what their chances are of being successful as I am not a lawyer. Going by their previous success rate in courts their chances are not great. But that's bringing in statistics again, and we have already established that's not deciding anything.
What we have discussed a few times on this board is if they can bring in new evidence/materials to their appeal, and I believe the consensus has been that they can't.
But the site I quote seem to say differently, and I would say that their chances of success could increase if they are allowed to present new evidence. In fact - that may be their only chance of winning.
Is that why they ask for new materials from the council and ACL?
Is that why they ask for new materials from the council and ACL?
I'm surprised they never had sight of the JV agreement in previous negotiations.I would think that is certainly one of the reasons.
But the point above is also relevant the Judges will only consider relevant evidence if it were available at the time the decision to make the loan was made. Evidence that dates after that decision really is not going to affect things. You would have to ask why given all the amounts of due diligence and legal discovery why something so crucial that it completely reverses the strongly adverse judgement only comes to light now and was not used before.
Just my opinion and I might well be misreading things but what I have seen before from the SISU legal team seems to be some facts but an awful lot of commentary and opinion that they try to dress up and force through as facts. Such dressing up as evidence is discounted by Judges fairly quickly - they are only interested in the facts that existed at the time
I'm surprised they never had sight of the JV agreement in previous negotiations.
But the point above is also relevant the Judges will only consider relevant evidence if it were available at the time the decision to make the loan was made. Evidence that dates after that decision really is not going to affect things. You would have to ask why given all the amounts of due diligence and legal discovery why something so crucial that it completely reverses the strongly adverse judgement only comes to light now and was not used before.
I'm surprised they never had sight of the JV agreement in previous negotiations.
Or is the current demand for details of an amended one that may have been agreed since 2012?
This is from InBrief.co.uk:
Frequently clients are anxious to know whether they can appeal in the event of an unsuccessful claim or defence long before their case is even heard. For others, it is the most pressing question after the judgment is pronounced. Some appeals can be brought as of right. Most other decisions can be appealed with permission. However, it is comparatively rare for decisions, particularly after trial, to be appealed. In recent times a total of about 1,600 appeals are completed each year in the Court of Appeal, of which just 25% are successful. Each year there are about 50 civil appeals to the House of Lords, of which about a third achieve some success. However in 2009, the judicial role of the House of Lords as the highest appeal court in the UK ended and from 1st October 2009, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom assumed jurisdiction on points of law for all civil law cases in the UK and all criminal cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Certainly sisu are not the only ones upset by a court decision and going by statistics alone they have a 25% chance of a successful outcome.
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/civil-court/civil-court-appeal.htm
From the same source:
The court of appeal may receive fresh evidence only if it is satisfied that such evidence:
- Could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the hearing;
- Would probably have an important influence on the result of the case; and
- Is apparently credible.
So maybe they could be granted permission to bring new evidence to the appeal?
Of course, we all are. This 'clutching at straws' suggests they're desperate never having had any other skill other than "court battering"Anybody else getting fed up with SISU dragging this on ?
The same document you reference states also that an appeal will only be allowed if the original decision was
Wrong; or
Unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court
So the three judges will decide on that first, then and only then can new evidence be brought forward. I don't think I have heard anyone claim to have 'significant new evidence' either.
I think you will find that there is no problem with dealing with other interested parties unless there is an exclusivity agreement. There was no such agreement with CCC that has been disclosed, the only one that seems to have existed was between SISU and AEHC which ended in July 2012. The conduct of the Trustees it was said by the judge to be beyond reproach.
In fact I think in one of the court cases the judge made reference to this issue of "dealing in good faith" basically whilst it might be seem morally wrong to us there is nothing in law to stop negotiations with multiple interested parties at the same time (caveat of exclusivity agreement obviously)
I do agree that SISU are relying on uncertainties but those get smaller and smaller every time the issues get examined
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?