SISUS Appeal (1 Viewer)

SkyblueBri

Well-Known Member
I thought they had 7 days to apply for an appeal, so it should have been done by now, does anyone know if it as?
 

Kingokings204

Well-Known Member
They have requested leave of appeal SBB which means they are requesting an appeal and its down to the original judge Justice Hickenbottom to grant it or not.

That is to be decided on the 14th July as with the costs. so a week today we should know more I believe.
 

vincy

Member
They have requested leave of appeal SBB which means they are requesting an appeal and its down to the original judge Justice Hickenbottom to grant it or not.

That is to be decided on the 14th July as with the costs. so a week today we should know more I believe.

Ah, that's it. KOK has it sorted. I seem to recall that if the Judge rejects it, SISU can the put in another appeal which goes to an appeal board, who then decide whehwer they have case for an appeal
 

ccfcway

Well-Known Member
Ah, that's it. KOK has it sorted. I seem to recall that if the Judge rejects it, SISU can the put in another appeal which goes to an appeal board, who then decide whehwer they have case for an appeal


And that's the way it will go......They are going to appeal the judges decision to throw out the appeal against the decision on a case which was that they appealed against a loan, which case was only bought to court because they appealed against the fact that it wasn't allowed to be brought to court in the 1st place.

clear ?
 

Kingokings204

Well-Known Member
Yes if the appeal is rejected as expected then sisu can appeal to the court of appeal within 21 days I think it is. Sadly none of these aims are realistic and just worthless and designed to distress acl if that's what they do.

Its worth taking into account that the JR was only sanctioned on appeal and with such a damning verdict then sadly this is waste of everyone's time and money.
 

spider_ricoh

New Member
Yes if the appeal is rejected as expected then sisu can appeal to the court of appeal within 21 days I think it is. Sadly none of these aims are realistic and just worthless and designed to distress acl if that's what they do.

Its worth taking into account that the JR was only sanctioned on appeal and with such a damning verdict then sadly this is waste of everyone's time and money.

Yes, it's a bit like one of those cases where an innocent person is accused on flimsy evidence and when acquitted the papers scream "how did it get to court in the first place?" (Corrie Kev looking at you) .... there, I've gone and said it now, just watch the court of appeal overturn the judge's ruling!!

I am partly thinking now that Sisu are dragging out the legals as far as they can, denying ACL revenue for as long as possible, which will help them as far as possible when they have to sit down and negotiate. Although the legal bill will be hefty, they will maybe find a way of not paying!!
 

joemercersaces

Well-Known Member
Yes, it's a bit like one of those cases where an innocent person is accused on flimsy evidence and when acquitted the papers scream "how did it get to court in the first place?" (Corrie Kev looking at you) .... there, I've gone and said it now, just watch the court of appeal overturn the judge's ruling!!

Or...one of those cases where a guilty person is taken to court albeit that the evidence is flimsy. They are acquitted but the papers then scream that this means that the accuser is a liar. Not commenting on any particular case of course just that our justice system, being adversarial, sometimes encourages the media towards hysterical over-reaction either way.
 

spider_ricoh

New Member
Yes, it's a bit like one of those cases where an innocent person is accused on flimsy evidence and when acquitted the papers scream "how did it get to court in the first place?" (Corrie Kev looking at you) .... there, I've gone and said it now, just watch the court of appeal overturn the judge's ruling!!

Or...one of those cases where a guilty person is taken to court albeit that the evidence is flimsy. They are acquitted but the papers then scream that this means that the accuser is a liar. Not commenting on any particular case of course just that our justice system, being adversarial, sometimes encourages the media towards hysterical over-reaction either way.

Anyone who has followed the Ricoh saga ought to know who is in the right, regardless of legal/procedural technicalities
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top