Higgs vs CCFC Court Row (40 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Sub

Sub

Well-Known Member
Simon Gilbert‏@TheSimonGilbert9sHiggs v Sisu case has broken for lunch. Full write up once we've finished. They are going over a lot of evidence here. Could be a long day!
 
Sub

Sub

Well-Known Member
Simon Gilbert‏@TheSimonGilbert19sOn the legal representatives count it's Sisu 7-2 Higgs. I'm not sure if we'll get to the witnesses today at this pace. Time will tell.
 
Mary_Mungo_Midge

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
Sub said:
Simon Gilbert‏@TheSimonGilbert19sOn the legal representatives count it's Sisu 7-2 Higgs. I'm not sure if we'll get to the witnesses today at this pace. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Well, as the Guardian reported, Mr Fisher is alleged to have quipped: 'SISU is a distressed debt fund and therefore batters people in court'
 
D

Deleted member 2526

Guest
Sub said:
Simon Gilbert‏@TheSimonGilbert19sOn the legal representatives count it's Sisu 7-2 Higgs. I'm not sure if we'll get to the witnesses today at this pace. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

That's more lawyers there than players we signed the year we went down ain't it?!
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
Noggin said:
God I hate so much that "justice" is based on your resources.
Click to expand...

Take your point, but at least in cases like this I'm not sure how much difference it will make. As long as the facts are represented, I think the judge is well placed to make a decision regardless of SISU's (supposed) legal muscle.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
Take your point, but at least in cases like this I'm not sure how much difference it will make. As long as the facts are represented, I think the judge is well placed to make a decision regardless of SISU's (supposed) legal muscle.
Click to expand...

It does make their complaints about turnover and profits seem a little silly when they are willing to spend so much on litigation.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
covcityaaron said:
That's more lawyers there than players we signed the year we went down ain't it?!
Click to expand...

If it's true to form then at least three of those lawyers are loans, and one of them will probably have to go back to his parent firm mid-trial to make the tea. ;)
 
Moff

Moff

Well-Known Member
Sub said:
Simon Gilbert‏@TheSimonGilbert19sOn the legal representatives count it's Sisu 7-2 Higgs. I'm not sure if we'll get to the witnesses today at this pace. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Perhaps 'too many cooks' will be the order of the day
 
N

Noggin

New Member
Nick said:
So if SISU win it is just down to resources?
Click to expand...

No, it was a general comment about courts in general. Sisu do have an advantage because of their resources though, that doesn't mean that if they win they didn't deserve to though of course, but it certainly is possible they could win without it being deserved due to their resources.
 
ajsccfc

ajsccfc

Well-Known Member
BLwo-8kCIAAwABs.jpg
 
olderskyblue

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
Is LAST going to be whistling all through the 2nd half??
 
tisza

tisza

Well-Known Member
7-2 lawyers. You can see where the cost difference comes between 290k and 29k. If higgs win maybe joy should employ them to manage the finances.
 
N

Noggin

New Member
duffer said:
Take your point, but at least in cases like this I'm not sure how much difference it will make. As long as the facts are represented, I think the judge is well placed to make a decision regardless of SISU's (supposed) legal muscle.
Click to expand...

Sure and I hope so too that whoever deserves to win (morally) does so.

Either way though it's not right, sisu will (or at least they believe they will) get an advantage by spending so much on lawyers (or they wouldn't do it) and it dramatically increases the risks for the other party, if sisu win the charity will have to pay for all these costs (which are either unnecessary or giving sisu an advantage)

whoever is in the right here the charity having to fork out to pay for 7 lawyers is a bad thing that will prevent people being helped by the charity.

My point though was really just a general one, I hate that resources give you an advantage in court when it should just be about the truth and I feel that way both for civil and criminal cases.
 
lewys33

lewys33

Well-Known Member
Cov Back to the Ricoh just tweeted this (I guess they are there??) ........

"Sisu QC getting taken to task by judge over good faith part of argument before even started! Suggesting no case?"
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
Noggin said:
Sure and I hope so too that whoever deserves to win (morally) does so.

Either way though it's not right, sisu will (or at least they believe they will) get an advantage by spending so much on lawyers (or they wouldn't do it) and it dramatically increases the risks for the other party, if sisu win the charity will have to pay for all these costs (which are either unnecessary or giving sisu an advantage)

whoever is in the right here the charity having to fork out to pay for 7 lawyers is a bad thing that will prevent people being helped by the charity.

My point though was really just a general one, I hate that resources give you an advantage in court when it should just be about the truth and I feel that way both for civil and criminal cases.
Click to expand...

No argument from me there, and even less so when you look at things like how the threat of a defamation claim (for which there is no legal aid) can be used by those with enough money to silence dissent. (e.g. SISU v SBT, and the David Conn article. A scandal.)
 
H

Houdi

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
Sure the judge will want to check that. I can see how you could rack up £29K in legal fees etc on this sort of thing but a breakdown of the £290K could be interesting reading. What odds on a large chunk of it being one part of SISU charging another part or payment for Fishers time?
Click to expand...
I wonder if they have sneaked a dry cleaning invoice into their counter claim.;)
 
M

Monners

Well-Known Member
Noggin said:
Sure and I hope so too that whoever deserves to win (morally) does so.

Either way though it's not right, sisu will (or at least they believe they will) get an advantage by spending so much on lawyers (or they wouldn't do it) and it dramatically increases the risks for the other party, if sisu win the charity will have to pay for all these costs (which are either unnecessary or giving sisu an advantage)



whoever is in the right here the charity having to fork out to pay for 7 lawyers is a bad thing that will prevent people being helped by the charity.

My point though was really just a general one, I hate that resources give you an advantage in court when it should just be about the truth and I feel that way both for civil and criminal cases.
Click to expand...

I was once told by a barrister that used to work with me that a court case is nothing to do with the truth. It is one legal argument versus another. He was a criminal defence lawyer by trade and had to let the truth element go when defending people.

Didn't like being called a lawyer - "I'm a Barrister!"
 
Last edited:
Sub

Sub

Well-Known Member
Simon Gilbert‏@TheSimonGilbert55 secsHiggs barrister describes Sisu's counterclaim as "not so much picking up a shield, but wielding a sword"
 
Rob S

Rob S

Well-Known Member
In court now.
Judge is a bit of a badass. Grilling Sisu QC on point of argument before he starts!
 
Sub

Sub

Well-Known Member
Simon Gilbert‏@TheSimonGilbert1mLots of debate over the term 'in good faith' at the moment...
 
N

Noggin

New Member
duffer said:
No argument from me there, and even less so when you look at things like how the threat of a defamation claim (for which there is no legal aid) can be used by those with enough money to silence dissent. (e.g. SISU v SBT, and the David Conn article. A scandal.)
Click to expand...

The Libel/Defamation laws in this country really are a disgrace, you can have your life ruined even when you are in the right. As you say you can also use the threat to bully people into silence.
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
The Otium part of that is interesting. from its incorporation in 2011 through to 31/05/13 then the only costs disclosed in the accounts is interest payable to ARVO and the write down of the loans made to CCFC H (they sourced the money from ARVO). The accounts say they have no employees. So how were there any costs during the period of negotiation with the charity in 2012?
Click to expand...

what i was wondering OSB is if the sisu counter claim includes cost for other companies we know are part of the SISU structure and also ARVO is mentioned in the same breath, can we take this as an admision that ARVO is a SISU compmany? if not surely ARVO would have there own claim in against higgs for cost?
 
lordsummerisle

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
Monners said:
I was once told by a barrister that used to work with me that a court case is nothing to do with the truth. It is one legal argument versus another. He was a criminal defence lawyer by trade and had to let the truth element go when defending people.

Didn't like being called a lawyer - "I'm a Barrister!"
Click to expand...

Used to know a barrister, used to hate it when I'd ask him for a skinny latte.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 41 (members: 0, guests: 41)
Top