Simon, do you know why or what's the point to sisu carrying on with pointless legal appeals etc? I don't get it as its costly and not realistic.
Thanks in advance as you know more than me.
I have a theory on that. The only thing I can think of is that a certain company is fighting to keep their "we batter people in court" reputation.
If anyone else has a better theory I'd love to hear it.
When mentioning new evidence it says "new ground was unarguable" does that mean it wasn't considered as it was new or that it was considered and wasn't relevant?
I'm increasingly of the opinion we're going to see a second JR, or equivalent, launched by SISU around the sale to Wasps. The flaw, for want of a better word, in the JR process seems to be it only considers a snapshot, by taking aim at another target SISU could extend this pretty much indefinetaly couldn't they?
How much is the rejection of an oral hearing going to cost?
At work so can't read Simon's link, but the article seems to make it clear that it was rejected by Hickinbottom as it had no merit and this judge agrees that even if it had been allowed, it wouldn't have changed anything.
Regarding your second point, I'd assume that they can launch another JR about the sale to Wasps if they want. But to be honest, considering how far off having a case they've been so far, I wouldn't be surprised to see it thrown out at the first hurdle. Of course, the last one was also thrown out at the first hurdle, only to be allowed at the second. So yes, as you say this could drag on for a bit.
Oral is usually cheaper than a full hearing I heard
When mentioning new evidence it says "new ground was unarguable" does that mean it wasn't considered as it was new or that it was considered and wasn't relevant?
I'm increasingly of the opinion we're going to see a second JR, or equivalent, launched by SISU around the sale to Wasps. The flaw, for want of a better word, in the JR process seems to be it only considers a snapshot, by taking aim at another target SISU could extend this pretty much indefinetaly couldn't they?
Anyone else think that 'Oral Hearing' sounds a bit smutty?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Especially as someone said it is cheaper than a full one.............
When mentioning new evidence it says "new ground was unarguable" does that mean it wasn't considered as it was new or that it was considered and wasn't relevant?
I'm increasingly of the opinion we're going to see a second JR, or equivalent, launched by SISU around the sale to Wasps. The flaw, for want of a better word, in the JR process seems to be it only considers a snapshot, by taking aim at another target SISU could extend this pretty much indefinetaly couldn't they?
As you and others now seem desperate for this legal crap to continue, what are you hoping to gain at the end of it?
To me, lets just play along for a minute and say that they get a second review and by some miracle they win, what will come of it? Do you think that we will get the Ricoh or even a share in it? Do you think that if Sisu get compensation they are likely to plough some of that in a charge to the Premiership? Do you think they will plough some of it into building a new ground? Or do you they it'll go some way to giving Joy's investors a return?
I believe the 'new ground' (no, not that one) was considered, havent listed all the reasons, but the conclusion is below. Link to the JR here http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/judgement-judicial-review-coventry-city-1707531.aspx
MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM
Approved Judgment
R (Sky Blue Sports & Leisure Ltd) v
Coventry City Council
161. Mr Goudie and Mr Quigley submitted that, the Third Claimant (CCFCH) having been
dissolved, the First and Second Claimants have insufficient standing to bring this new
claim. I did not find that submission strong. However, they submitted, with
considerably more force, that the Claimants were simply too late to make this entirely
new claim, and permission should be refused on the grounds of delay alone. Had I
considered any part of Ground 2 to be arguable, I would have taken into account the
extraordinary delay in making this claim to which (contrary to Mr Thompson’s
submission) I do not consider any failure on the Council’s part to give disclosure
materially contributed. However, for the reasons I have given, I do not consider any
element of Ground 2 to be arguable, on the merits; and, on that basis, I refuse
permission to proceed.
On to the Supreme Court then European Court of Justice then?
Presumably then the new ground can't reasonably form part of JR#2 due to the further passage of time? Or was it passage of time with the individual case?
If SISU believe that JR#2 will be more successful that #1.. then why not knock that one on the head.
That way everyone can support them in regards to the sale to Wasps... which we are all vehemently opposed to of course as a matter of principle..... right?
I would think it is going to take some exceptional talking to turn that around at an oral hearing. The appeal judge verdict does not leave much room for doubt does it
On to the Supreme Court then European Court of Justice then?
Simon we have no keeper for Saturday and are drifting down to league 2. Any chance you can ask the club anything about that?
The over lying worry for me is the fact that Sisu can keep on bringing appeals and court cases until the cows come home. The debt burden of all the shenanigans will just be put on the club making it unsalable for any potential purchaser. And when they finally admit defeat and were no longer in the top tears of the league because the money was spent in the courts and not on the pitch they will liquidate. Sick to the back teeth of them!
Simon, do you know why or what's the point to sisu carrying on with pointless legal appeals etc? I don't get it as its costly and not realistic.
Thanks in advance as you know more than me.
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?