Judge blocks further Action (1 Viewer)

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Judge delivers brief verdict at High Court in Birmingham and refused permission for further action

Ricoh Arena
Sisu has lost its High Court battle with Coventry City Council, it was announced today.

In a 60-second hearing this morning at Birmingham, Mr Justice Hickinbottom said the council had successfully defended the claim brought by the owners of Coventry City FC

Referring to a 100 page judgment, the Judge said: ''This claim fails formally on grounds one and three of the judgment and I refuse permission for further action on ground two of the judgment.''

The verdict was delivered today following a judicial review at Birmingham High Court earlier this month, which looked at a £14.4million council loan to ACL - the operators of the Ricoh Arena.

Coventry City Football Club owners Sisu claimed the loan amounted to unlawful state aid and that the council had made an irrational decision when agreeing the deal.

The council argued it had acted to protect its investment in ACL after the football club began withholding its rent payments.

Their lawyers claimed that the judicial review had been pursued as part of a Sisu plan to 'distress' ACL - and therefore ultimately gain control of the Ricoh Arena.

A statement released by Coventry City said: "The Judgement by Hickinbottom J, that the Council's (CCC) decision to provide a £14.4m loan to private stadium management company Arena Coventry Limited (ACL) was not an unlawful subsidy, is unfortunate.

"The football club and its owners believe that the loan, which exceeded the value of the stadium by almost 200 per cent, was neither lawful nor in the interests of the supporters, taxpayers, stadium operators or the Club.

"ACL will now remain burdened with debt for the next 43 years, removing any prospect of a long term return to the stadium by the Club. With this level of debt there is no realistic prospect of any sports franchise or ACL being able to generate sufficient revenue to be commercially viable.

"We will apply for leave to appeal this decision. Now, more than ever, the new stadium is the only viable commercial option. The owner's primary objective remains building a long term sound financial platform for the future growth of the Club. "
 

labrax

Member
That is confusing isn't it. The refusal of permission for further action on ground two may be connected to SISU's claim for permission to seek damages for loss of revenue because of the loan. Only guessing though.
 

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
If that means it can't be dragged on any further then that's a relief.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
That is confusing isn't it. The refusal of permission for further action on ground two may be connected to SISU's claim for permission to seek damages for loss of revenue because of the loan. Only guessing though.

Yes that would make sense
One of their actions requested the remedy of claiming damages.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
It would be a relief if they could not appeal unfortunately that is not the case :(
Nothing can be achieved whilst SISU take lengthy action they can't win.
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
"We will apply for leave to appeal this decision. Now, more than ever, the new stadium is the only viable commercial option. The owner's primary objective remains building a long term sound financial platform for the future growth of the Club. "

Really ?
I'm no expert but even I have a better plan.
 

Kingokings204

Well-Known Member
"We will apply for leave to appeal this decision. Now, more than ever, the new stadium is the only viable commercial option. The owner's primary objective remains building a long term sound financial platform for the future growth of the Club. "

Really ?
I'm no expert but even I have a better plan.

Don't you know. They haven't got a fucking clue.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
The judge dismissed Sisu's claims on ground one and three of his judgment, and prevented them from taking further action to recover damages in ground two.

Looking at the issue of 'state aid' in ground one, Justice Hickinbottom concluded: “I do not consider that the council's loan to ACL was state aid. Ground one consequently fails.”

Ground two analysed whether the council had taken into account material considerations when agreeing to make the loan to ACL.

The judge took into account seven key matters when making his decision and concluded: “I do not consider there is any arguable force in any of the seven discrete elements of ground two.”

The judge's analysis of ground three - Sisu's claim that the council acted 'irrationally' - was brief and stated that: “It clearly cannot survive my findings in relation to other grounds, particularly those in respect of state aid.”
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
I'm confused. So can they appeal or not?

I think they can apply to appeal but I don't think they can straight forward appeal. They have to apply for the right to first.

Separately to that I think judge has blocked them attempting to take any action future action for damages from the councils decision to offer the loan.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
So, we don't know basically?

Could they appeal the original decision to not let some arguments to in front of the judge? Or would that not count as new evidence?

Didn't people seem to think that there were things Labovitch talked about in the private fora that didn't some out in the JR? Could they be grounds for appeal?
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Simon Gilbert having read the report says words to the effect of he is surprised they are appealing the judges decision is very comprehensive.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
So, we don't know basically?

They can always say they'll appeal.

If there's no actual room for them to appeal however, it won't happen. Just because they don't like the verdict or still think they're right isn't a good enough reason to get an appeal!
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
It seems to be two different thinks. Refusing permission for further action is in relation to SISU's request for remedies.

The appeal SISU have to apply for an appeal they are not just automatically granted one. I am guessing that will base it on the 1000 pages they could not use.
 

Kingokings204

Well-Known Member
Even if they appeal, what's the point it's more costs and it's such a battering they took it wasn't even close so don't understand it.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Even if they appeal, what's the point it's more costs and it's such a battering they took it wasn't even close so don't understand it.

Desperation?

That statement on the club website is pretty bitter. I don't expect Joy is taking this well.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Desperation?

That statement on the club website is pretty bitter. I don't expect Joy is taking this well.

Remembering, of course, that we had similar threads after they were originally refused leave to apply for a full Judicial Review, and they successfully appealed that...
 

lewys33

Well-Known Member
Remembering, of course, that we had similar threads after they were originally refused leave to apply for a full Judicial Review, and they successfully appealed that...

Wasn't that on the basis they submitted more evidence? Am I right in saying they cannot submit more evidence for this case?
 

wes_cov

New Member
It's actually all a CCC conspiracy to distress CCFC...

They are encouraging SISU to take legal action they know they can easily defend to financially distress SISU to obtain a change of ownership...

Or it could be SISU are acting like petulant children.... which judging by the 2 statements...
 

ohitsaidwalker king power

Well-Known Member
It's actually all a CCC conspiracy to distress CCFC...

They are encouraging SISU to take legal action they know they can easily defend to financially distress SISU to obtain a change of ownership...

...

Love it... another conspiracy theory.. could do with another to wrangle the merits of over... meanwhile Rome burns..:(
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Wasn't that on the basis they submitted more evidence? Am I right in saying they cannot submit more evidence for this case?

Pretty sure they can if it's new information.

Again, though, it needs somebody to actually accept it's a valid reason for an appeal. It has to be the right evidence, after all!
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Remembering, of course, that we had similar threads after they were originally refused leave to apply for a full Judicial Review, and they successfully appealed that...

Oh I've been a City supporter faaaar too long to think we're out of the woods yet.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top