No News from Court of Appeal (1 Viewer)

[lamtara2006]

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.

 

---

[letsallsingtogether]

When Hell Freezes over.

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.

Fuck me will get cold in them Sisu offices

 

[blend]

Isn't it all kind of an irrelevance now? Interesting perhaps, but what would it change for CCFC, or even ACL for that matter?

 

[RFC]

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?

 

[blend]

Just might change quite a lot?

Well at least I hope so but who knows?

Then I don't understand how can you take me through it in steps please, even if it's aspirational?

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Just might change quite a lot?

Well at least I hope so but who knows?

You thought it was a forgone conclusion,what's the matter changed your mind?

 

[Sick Boy]

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.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

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.

 

[Sick Boy]

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.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

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.

All depends any hills near the Dublin ground?

 

[dongonzalos]

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.

Watching Cov in Dublin would be quite cool TBF. Maybe one match a season like the Prem will be doing in America

 

[letsallsingtogether]

What like the ones who went to sixfields to support the lads.

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.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Watching Cov in Dublin would be quite cool TBF. Maybe one match a season like the Prem will be doing in America

But that will be OK because we can Pretend it is not Franchising as we know it. As they have been doing it for ages in America so it is acceptable?

 

[Warwickhunt]

CCC don't own it anymore the JR can rule as it likes but it cannot overturn the sale to EASPS

 

[Nick]

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)

 

[letsallsingtogether]

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.......

 

[Nick]

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.......

I agree, you can't argue with that. The same as you can't with other people on the Hill who said the minute we are back they will be there. I don't think the issue is actually the people on the hill, the people like Michael who were protesting as at the end of the day, everybody is back behind the club. I don't mind everybody must attend every game, buy every shirt etc. There is a good example of a guy on twitter, when we were in Northampton he was vile some of the stuff he was coming out with, doesn't seem like he has been that bothered now we are back.

I think even at the time the actual people doing the abusing were the people online, yes there may have been a bit of bickering on the odd occasion but most of it was Jonny Concrete's online spouting off their crap.

 

[oldskyblue58]

As I understand it there are presently almost 300 cases listed yet to be heard by the Court of Appeal and the ARVO/SBS&L JR one is not on that list yet. The application I believe has been made but that application has not been listed to be considered by the Court. I wouldn't expect the ARVO/SBS&L case to be heard until at least January - but that's just a guess.

 

[Godiva]

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?

 

[letsallsingtogether]

ML told us that he had all the evidence they needed to win 100%?
So can't see there being that much more shit they can dig up then again it is Sisu.
keeping all mine locked up.

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?

 

[skybluetony176]

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?

 

[Godiva]

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?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

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?

I think any new evidence would still need to be proved to have existed at the time the loan decision was made, so it's not necessarily a case of any new evidence. I'm no lawyer so this is just my understanding, if you want a full legal view it's best to ask Fisher.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Is that why they ask for new materials from the council and ACL?

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

 

[fernandopartridge]

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.

 

[oldskyblue58]

I'm surprised they never had sight of the JV agreement in previous negotiations.

so am I fp. Surely such an agreement was fundamental to doing any due diligence. So what were they doing for 3 months in 2012 when they were supposedly doing due diligence. There has never been any comment made that during the exclusivity period that information was being with held as far as I know. The JV existence has never been a secret.

Or is the current demand for details of an amended one that may have been agreed since 2012?

 

[Godiva]

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.

It's the JVA I think could be the most interesting piece.
It was changed just before the loan as the existing JVA did not allow one party to be more financially involved than the other.

I am not saying the new JVA is a smoking gun or even a definitely game changer - and I suspect sisu don't know either.
Probably just a fishing expedition.

 

[Godiva]

Or is the current demand for details of an amended one that may have been agreed since 2012?

I think it was changed in December 2012.

 

[oldskyblue58]

So what have the SISU lawyers been doing? Surely they would have asked for details of the JVA that changed before the CCC loan was made as part of the pre trial discovery because that formed part of the loan decision process?

They are fishing I think as you say............

 

[Cheshire Sky Blue]

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?

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.

 

[italiahorse]

Anybody else getting fed up with SISU dragging this on ?

It's enough to make you turn to Rugby

 

[dadgad]

Anybody else getting fed up with SISU dragging this on ?

Of course, we all are. This 'clutching at straws' suggests they're desperate never having had any other skill other than "court battering"

 

[Godiva]

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.

Again - I am not a lawyer. I really wouldn't know the order of process.

What I do know is that law is not an exact science. That a lot is down to interpretation and that the same paragraph can have different meanings in different situations. Otherwise there really wouldn't be thousands of cases each year and then another 1.600 appeals.

I don't know if there is any new evidence, but if Wasps CEO is to believed, then it would seem that the council knew another potential buyer was in town at the time they bailed out ACL. That could potentially be damaging for the council - or it could mean nothing.
The new JVA between the council and Higgs could potentially make a difference - or it could mean nothing.

The point is - as long as there are uncertainties sisu are entitled to pursue their options in the legal system. And I don't think many - if any - on this board knows enough about the law or the materials sitting with sisu or the council/ACL to be able to really predict the outcome. It may not be the swift dismissal most expect.

 

[oldskyblue58]

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 I think 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

all we can do is wait see what happens ....... probably some time next year

 

[Godiva]

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

They can deal with other parties - that's not the point.

The case is about whether the council loan was unlawful legal aid.
The loan was said to be a protection of their investment in ACL. But if two parties were interested in taking over ACL - one even interested in buying the loan and discharge it - then couldn't it weaken the councils case?

The judgement was based on the belief that sisu were trying to distress ACL making it ok for the council to protect their interest.
Now it would seem there was another interested party at the time they took over the loan from YB, and - the point being - the Wasps were not trying to distress ACL, were they?