In rebutting Sisu's claim, the CCC QC misquoted the Sisu QC (from yesterday) which is where the argument came from.
There's been a lot of discussion about the rent and if there was an agreement to reduce it, run down the escrow etc. The legal decision here (which is what counts) will be that whatever was discussed in 2012 wasn't legally binding so the club going ahead with the discussed terms is non-payment, even if reduced rather than complete non-payment.
Bear in mind that the appeal judge that got us to this point accepted that some rent was paid so the judgment today should include an actual legal decision on that if I understand correctly. We'll see what the judge says in his summing up.