covcity4life
Well-Known Member
we hate you ccfc we do!
Judicial Review thread (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter ccfcway
- Start date
- Status
Rob S
Well-Known Member
OSB: This week's verdict isn't so important for the simple fact that either side will appeal if they lose. Therefore we will have to wait until the end of the appeal hearing for the final verdict. I do love how people (inc. Michael 'I'm So Tired of Spin' Orton) are trying to spin this straightforward fact into something more devious tho'.
Read into court: Evidence deemed relevant by either party will be used and is contained within their skeleton arguments (SA) which have been logged with the court and already seen by all parties. The context for that evidence is referred to in the SA (you'll hear things like 'Bundle X, Tab Y, Page Z').
If Sisu are having to show that there was a conspiracy to get them to sell the club / walk away then they'll have to try and argue that case and provide evidence. I know that some of the Sisu-out-at-all-costs fundamentalists are going to be exceedingly upset that Sisu might try and actually prove their case and so will do all they can to try and muddy the waters and cry foul at anything that does that.
Be very wary. Anyone who cares about trying to find out as much as they can about what has been going on will have a gold mine here. Anyone with a strict agenda will try and rubbish what doesn't support their view and laud what does.
I wonder if Simon Gilbert is preparing us for the possibility that details of conversations between his editor & council officers may come to light and need to be 'contextualised'.
Read into court: Evidence deemed relevant by either party will be used and is contained within their skeleton arguments (SA) which have been logged with the court and already seen by all parties. The context for that evidence is referred to in the SA (you'll hear things like 'Bundle X, Tab Y, Page Z').
If Sisu are having to show that there was a conspiracy to get them to sell the club / walk away then they'll have to try and argue that case and provide evidence. I know that some of the Sisu-out-at-all-costs fundamentalists are going to be exceedingly upset that Sisu might try and actually prove their case and so will do all they can to try and muddy the waters and cry foul at anything that does that.
Be very wary. Anyone who cares about trying to find out as much as they can about what has been going on will have a gold mine here. Anyone with a strict agenda will try and rubbish what doesn't support their view and laud what does.
I wonder if Simon Gilbert is preparing us for the possibility that details of conversations between his editor & council officers may come to light and need to be 'contextualised'.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
DOn't agree it has to be so one sided as you'd like it to be. As long as we are back at the Ricoh then ultimately I don't care who is "shown up". CCFC in Coventry is more important than petty one upmanship.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
OSB: This week's verdict isn't so important for the simple fact that either side will appeal if they lose. Therefore we will have to wait until the end of the appeal hearing for the final verdict. I do love how people (inc. Michael 'I'm So Tired of Spin' Orton) are trying to spin this straightforward fact into something more devious tho'.
Read into court: Evidence deemed relevant by either party will be used and is contained within their skeleton arguments (SA) which have been logged with the court and already seen by all parties. The context for that evidence is referred to in the SA (you'll hear things like 'Bundle X, Tab Y, Page Z').
If Sisu are having to show that there was a conspiracy to get them to sell the club / walk away then they'll have to try and argue that case and provide evidence. I know that some of the Sisu-out-at-all-costs fundamentalists are going to be exceedingly upset that Sisu might try and actually prove their case and so will do all they can to try and muddy the waters and cry foul at anything that does that.
Be very wary. Anyone who cares about trying to find out as much as they can about what has been going on will have a gold mine here. Anyone with a strict agenda will try and rubbish what doesn't support their view and laud what does.
I wonder if Simon Gilbert is preparing us for the possibility that details of conversations between his editor & council officers may come to light and need to be 'contextualised'.
I thought CCC couldn't appeal as it wasn't them who sought the proceedings and SISU can only appeal if they have fresh evidence to present i.e. they can't appeal just on the grounds that they don't agree with the judge?
Nick
Administrator
I wonder if Simon Gilbert is preparing us for the possibility that details of conversations between his editor & council officers may come to light and need to be 'contextualised'.
Is there something you know? Although to be fair I think Simon is an employee, that sort of thing is probably way above him and he does his job as he is told like most people who want to go to work and support their family.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Up the Council!
AFCCOVENTRY
Well-Known Member
@TheSimonGilbert: Two of Sisu's four arguments already dropped ahead of today. Currently discussing another 'irrationality'
James Smith
Well-Known Member
If there is only one party involved can you still have a conspiracy? Or are you including ACL in that as well as the council?
Last edited:
AFCCOVENTRY
Well-Known Member
Sisu might have only 1 argument now...lol
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
I hope all sides get shown up for what they are personally
It seems that a few are going to be revelling in joy if the council get a victory in court.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Nick
Administrator
mighty quinn
New Member
Hope sisu lose.think it would be the beginning of the end for these dreadful owners who have dragged my wonderful club into the gutter.and no one and I mean no one should side with these ruthless idiots.
Rob S
Well-Known Member
I think the conspiracy story goes something along the lines that the Council (both elected officials & executive officers), Higgs, former directors Hoffman & Elliot and even Sky Blue Trust committee members and the editor of the Cov Tel are somehow involved. There would need to be a fair amount of actual evidence to actually prove any of that so I wouldn't put too much on the conspiracy just yet
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Just wanted to say that reading people from both sides (the genuine posters, not the trolls) you can tell that at the heart of all is a massive desire just to see the club home and safe. We may have different opinions on how that's achieved, but I think it's important to remember (especially when it's all about to kick off) that were all coming from the same place.
That said, I fear too many are hoping for this to put an end to it all and I just can't see that.
That said, I fear too many are hoping for this to put an end to it all and I just can't see that.
OSB: This week's verdict isn't so important for the simple fact that either side will appeal if they lose. Therefore we will have to wait until the end of the appeal hearing for the final verdict. I do love how people (inc. Michael 'I'm So Tired of Spin' Orton) are trying to spin this straightforward fact into something more devious tho'.
Read into court: Evidence deemed relevant by either party will be used and is contained within their skeleton arguments (SA) which have been logged with the court and already seen by all parties. The context for that evidence is referred to in the SA (you'll hear things like 'Bundle X, Tab Y, Page Z').
If Sisu are having to show that there was a conspiracy to get them to sell the club / walk away then they'll have to try and argue that case and provide evidence. I know that some of the Sisu-out-at-all-costs fundamentalists are going to be exceedingly upset that Sisu might try and actually prove their case and so will do all they can to try and muddy the waters and cry foul at anything that does that.
Be very wary. Anyone who cares about trying to find out as much as they can about what has been going on will have a gold mine here. Anyone with a strict agenda will try and rubbish what doesn't support their view and laud what does.
I wonder if Simon Gilbert is preparing us for the possibility that details of conversations between his editor & council officers may come to light and need to be 'contextualised'.
Evidence deemed relevant by either party...... Says it all. The evidence that the judge deems relevant is what this case is all about.
Assuming we have a gold mine of dirty washing, what does that mean in terms of getting CCFC back to Coventry? How does that help reconcile the parties?
SISU won't be able to prove their case - "pervid plan" - as was seen at the Higg's trial. They may prove that CCC cannot stand them, think they are bullies, don't want them to have the Ricoh on the cheap etc. and would prefer another owner. That is not illegal and would not be surprising in the circumstances.
Was the loan restructuring illegal is the question, based on the known facts at the time, not if there was a conspiracy to get did of SISU.
The restructuring could be legal or illegal without a conspiracy against SISU. They could theoretically even have been reducing ACL monthly outgoings legally or illegally to be able to offer SISU better rental terms in the hope that they stay - with the emphasis on theoretically.
Rob S
Well-Known Member
AFAIK both sides have leave to appeal the decision.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Ah do even if they lose CCC are the good guys. I get it.
Rob S
Well-Known Member
Well, the key point is if they manoeuvred to force that which is. That is one of the main points of Sisu's argument.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Does anyone know what the basis of these 2 arguments are or if we will ever find out what they were? Presumably the details wont be entered into the court records?
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Then the nightmare will never end !!
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
To be honest Spion, I don't think we can rely on any relevant football authority to help us. I mean look at Blatter's latest comments, he is the most powerful man in football and and the man is a complete c@#t!
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
OSB: This week's verdict isn't so important for the simple fact that either side will appeal if they lose. Therefore we will have to wait until the end of the appeal hearing for the final verdict. I do love how people (inc. Michael 'I'm So Tired of Spin' Orton) are trying to spin this straightforward fact into something more devious tho'.
Read into court: Evidence deemed relevant by either party will be used and is contained within their skeleton arguments (SA) which have been logged with the court and already seen by all parties. The context for that evidence is referred to in the SA (you'll hear things like 'Bundle X, Tab Y, Page Z').
If Sisu are having to show that there was a conspiracy to get them to sell the club / walk away then they'll have to try and argue that case and provide evidence. I know that some of the Sisu-out-at-all-costs fundamentalists are going to be exceedingly upset that Sisu might try and actually prove their case and so will do all they can to try and muddy the waters and cry foul at anything that does that.
Be very wary. Anyone who cares about trying to find out as much as they can about what has been going on will have a gold mine here. Anyone with a strict agenda will try and rubbish what doesn't support their view and laud what does.
I wonder if Simon Gilbert is preparing us for the possibility that details of conversations between his editor & council officers may come to light and need to be 'contextualised'.
The appeals process isn't that simple though is it. Both sides have 21 days after the judges decision to apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the decision. That is not a full court case and if the C of App turns the application down that's it. Unless there is a point on European law that is not acte clair( ie straight forward and transparent) in which case it must be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union. So the Judgement in this weeks case could stand if no appeal or if leave to appeal is refused. It does not necessarily mean there will be an appeals case.
There exactly is the problem of perception "Evidence deemed relevant by either party will be used and is contained within their skeleton arguments " That means that certain facts will be used others wont to suit a particular argument that is how it works. Even taking both skeleton arguments together doesn't actually mean all facts will be used. So that must mean that not all facts are read in to court. As with the Higgs case the judge will seek to cut through the opinion to the facts pertaining to the matter in hand. Will more documents become available yes ..... my question is what will it change in solving the problem of CCFC.
SISU have a problem proving conspiracy I would have thought. Justice Leggatt has already said the Charity Trustees acted in absolutely the right way and that from August 2012 there was no deal between SISU and Higgs because neither side had the will for it. There was subsequently no other deal agreed in any way. Justice Hickinbottom has already referred to that decision also. Who is the conspiracy between exactly?
There are facts and there are facts that cut to the heart of what was done or not done. I have a feeling there is going to be a "fact" overload. Knowing everything if the Judge says no case to answer for CCC changes what exactly? Personally I will try to keep an open mind until I have heard (read?) all three days or so court transcripts and seen some of these documents.
"Anyone with a strict agenda will try and rubbish what doesn't support their view and laud what does." I would have thought that applies to both sides of the divide in this. However the Judge will probably take the narrowest view of all in that he will only take in to account the facts that relate directly to the CCC decision to make the loan
Should Simon Gilbert be doing that then? Is it likely to be a problem for them then RobS?
Read into court: Evidence deemed relevant by either party will be used and is contained within their skeleton arguments (SA) which have been logged with the court and already seen by all parties. The context for that evidence is referred to in the SA (you'll hear things like 'Bundle X, Tab Y, Page Z').
If Sisu are having to show that there was a conspiracy to get them to sell the club / walk away then they'll have to try and argue that case and provide evidence. I know that some of the Sisu-out-at-all-costs fundamentalists are going to be exceedingly upset that Sisu might try and actually prove their case and so will do all they can to try and muddy the waters and cry foul at anything that does that.
Be very wary. Anyone who cares about trying to find out as much as they can about what has been going on will have a gold mine here. Anyone with a strict agenda will try and rubbish what doesn't support their view and laud what does.
I wonder if Simon Gilbert is preparing us for the possibility that details of conversations between his editor & council officers may come to light and need to be 'contextualised'.
The appeals process isn't that simple though is it. Both sides have 21 days after the judges decision to apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the decision. That is not a full court case and if the C of App turns the application down that's it. Unless there is a point on European law that is not acte clair( ie straight forward and transparent) in which case it must be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union. So the Judgement in this weeks case could stand if no appeal or if leave to appeal is refused. It does not necessarily mean there will be an appeals case.
There exactly is the problem of perception "Evidence deemed relevant by either party will be used and is contained within their skeleton arguments " That means that certain facts will be used others wont to suit a particular argument that is how it works. Even taking both skeleton arguments together doesn't actually mean all facts will be used. So that must mean that not all facts are read in to court. As with the Higgs case the judge will seek to cut through the opinion to the facts pertaining to the matter in hand. Will more documents become available yes ..... my question is what will it change in solving the problem of CCFC.
SISU have a problem proving conspiracy I would have thought. Justice Leggatt has already said the Charity Trustees acted in absolutely the right way and that from August 2012 there was no deal between SISU and Higgs because neither side had the will for it. There was subsequently no other deal agreed in any way. Justice Hickinbottom has already referred to that decision also. Who is the conspiracy between exactly?
There are facts and there are facts that cut to the heart of what was done or not done. I have a feeling there is going to be a "fact" overload. Knowing everything if the Judge says no case to answer for CCC changes what exactly? Personally I will try to keep an open mind until I have heard (read?) all three days or so court transcripts and seen some of these documents.
"Anyone with a strict agenda will try and rubbish what doesn't support their view and laud what does." I would have thought that applies to both sides of the divide in this. However the Judge will probably take the narrowest view of all in that he will only take in to account the facts that relate directly to the CCC decision to make the loan
Should Simon Gilbert be doing that then? Is it likely to be a problem for them then RobS?
Last edited:
What is a victory in court? Being proved that the JR cost a fortune in legals, stopped us moving forwards, prevented CCC from offering negotiations without a court case looming over them, wasted charity time and money, involved council officers in senseless work and all for nothing? There is no victory here. The time lost to CCC, ACL and the progress of CCFC will not come back.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The appeals process according to Richard Buxton Lawyers http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/v3.0/node/15
Appeals process
We have several tiers to our legal system. Most of our cases start off in the Administrative Court, which is a branch of the High Court. The appeal route from there is to the Court of Appeal and thence to the Supreme Court.
Court of Appeal
In most cases permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is required. The lower court may grant permission, but this is unusual as it is a way of saying that the judge accepts the decision may not be right. More often, permission is refused and one has to apply for permission from the Court of Appeal itself. It is vital to initiate this process quickly. One has to lodge an "Appellant's Notice" within 21 days of the decision to be appealed along with grounds of appeal. This is relatively easy to do, as the information required is not great. Nevertheless, full documentation and a skeleton argument in support have to be provided shortly after that.
In cases where permission for judicial review is refused by the High Court, the Appellant's Notice must be lodged within one week (7 days).
Refused permission
A decision is made on paper by a Lord/Lady Justice of Appeal. If the decision is to refuse permission, one can renew the application to an oral hearing within 7 days of the order refusing permission). That will usually be before one, but sometimes two, Lord/Lady Justices. The other party or parties are not normally invited, but in practice they will often turn up to the hearing. They may still not be allowed to make representations or claim costs - the point is that the prospective appellant must show that the proposed appeal stands a realistic prospect of success.
If permission to appeal is refused at that stage, that is the end of the matter. One cannot take it further to the Supreme Court because you will have been refused twice - in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
In this sense the Court of Appeal is, therefore, a court of last instance and as a matter of law must refer points of European law that are not acte clair to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In practice in such cases the Lord/Lady Justice(s) hearing the application for permission will usually adjourn the matter to a full three person court for further consideration.
Granted permission
If permission is granted, the appeal will be heard, usually before a three-person court. Usually, no new evidence is allowed as the facts have been available at the High Court stage, but sometimes it is possible to file fresh evidence. The appeal stage therefore tends to be quicker and cheaper than the High Court stage.
As in the High Court, judgment may be given on the spot, though usually it is handed down. Increasingly, the Court of Appeal will either give one judgment on behalf of the Lord/Lady Justices, or two will simply agree with one lead judgment. This unanimity is less interesting than previous practice where the judges had different perspectives. There is also again argument about costs and permission to appeal to the Supreme Court (which is almost invariably refused). This may be done in Court or, frequently, on paper.
Appeals process
We have several tiers to our legal system. Most of our cases start off in the Administrative Court, which is a branch of the High Court. The appeal route from there is to the Court of Appeal and thence to the Supreme Court.
Court of Appeal
In most cases permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is required. The lower court may grant permission, but this is unusual as it is a way of saying that the judge accepts the decision may not be right. More often, permission is refused and one has to apply for permission from the Court of Appeal itself. It is vital to initiate this process quickly. One has to lodge an "Appellant's Notice" within 21 days of the decision to be appealed along with grounds of appeal. This is relatively easy to do, as the information required is not great. Nevertheless, full documentation and a skeleton argument in support have to be provided shortly after that.
In cases where permission for judicial review is refused by the High Court, the Appellant's Notice must be lodged within one week (7 days).
Refused permission
A decision is made on paper by a Lord/Lady Justice of Appeal. If the decision is to refuse permission, one can renew the application to an oral hearing within 7 days of the order refusing permission). That will usually be before one, but sometimes two, Lord/Lady Justices. The other party or parties are not normally invited, but in practice they will often turn up to the hearing. They may still not be allowed to make representations or claim costs - the point is that the prospective appellant must show that the proposed appeal stands a realistic prospect of success.
If permission to appeal is refused at that stage, that is the end of the matter. One cannot take it further to the Supreme Court because you will have been refused twice - in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
In this sense the Court of Appeal is, therefore, a court of last instance and as a matter of law must refer points of European law that are not acte clair to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In practice in such cases the Lord/Lady Justice(s) hearing the application for permission will usually adjourn the matter to a full three person court for further consideration.
Granted permission
If permission is granted, the appeal will be heard, usually before a three-person court. Usually, no new evidence is allowed as the facts have been available at the High Court stage, but sometimes it is possible to file fresh evidence. The appeal stage therefore tends to be quicker and cheaper than the High Court stage.
As in the High Court, judgment may be given on the spot, though usually it is handed down. Increasingly, the Court of Appeal will either give one judgment on behalf of the Lord/Lady Justices, or two will simply agree with one lead judgment. This unanimity is less interesting than previous practice where the judges had different perspectives. There is also again argument about costs and permission to appeal to the Supreme Court (which is almost invariably refused). This may be done in Court or, frequently, on paper.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
And had always been evidently nonsense.
For anyone to replace Sisu, Sisu would need to sell or the club be in admin/liquidation.
That can't happen if Sisu pay their debts. The actor who took action to disrupt the status quo was quite evidently Sisu with the rent strike and the subsequent refusal to pay court ordered amounts. They could've stopped the process at any point and ultimately even that didn't remove them.
The only possible claim is that Mutton is such a tactical genius that he tricked the club into not paying rent (and continuing not to pay for a year whilst making public statements about not paying). And even then you've got to ask why Sisu didn't just call shenanigans when the admin process was started.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Neither ........... and to be honest RobS that's pretty pathetic isn't it
CC4L will tell you I work for the council !
Just to be clear I do not work for any of the parties involved in this drama. I was appointed for 1 day only to work for the Alan Higgs Centre Trust to advise at the first creditors meeting last May. There have been no other appointments before or since, directly or indirectly.
Last edited:
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
OSB: This week's verdict isn't so important for the simple fact that either side will appeal if they lose. Therefore we will have to wait until the end of the appeal hearing for the final verdict. I do love how people (inc. Michael 'I'm So Tired of Spin' Orton) are trying to spin this straightforward fact into something more devious tho'.
Read into court: Evidence deemed relevant by either party will be used and is contained within their skeleton arguments (SA) which have been logged with the court and already seen by all parties. The context for that evidence is referred to in the SA (you'll hear things like 'Bundle X, Tab Y, Page Z').
If Sisu are having to show that there was a conspiracy to get them to sell the club / walk away then they'll have to try and argue that case and provide evidence. I know that some of the Sisu-out-at-all-costs fundamentalists are going to be exceedingly upset that Sisu might try and actually prove their case and so will do all they can to try and muddy the waters and cry foul at anything that does that.
Be very wary. Anyone who cares about trying to find out as much as they can about what has been going on will have a gold mine here. Anyone with a strict agenda will try and rubbish what doesn't support their view and laud what does.
I wonder if Simon Gilbert is preparing us for the possibility that details of conversations between his editor & council officers may come to light and need to be 'contextualised'.
Fucking hell Rob. You say Michael is trying to spin straight forward facts then come out with your last line.
Does it matter who win's? no matter the outcome nothing changes, the club will still be fucked with the worst owners we have ever had and the council will still play hardball regarding the Ricoh.. On here winning and losing is all about i told you so or i knew all along they were hiding something....In the end nothing matter's, nothing changes and our club is more in the news about off field than on it,,, my wish would be to lose the owners have no council influence and have fan influence on any new board...
Any thing else is just the same day same BS situation with individuals claiming they are the injured party while the club dies,, same as on here..I was right, you are wrong while all we support is lost in a court room, shame really that most can't see no matter what opinion we fans want the same, OUR CLUB BACK..
Any thing else is just the same day same BS situation with individuals claiming they are the injured party while the club dies,, same as on here..I was right, you are wrong while all we support is lost in a court room, shame really that most can't see no matter what opinion we fans want the same, OUR CLUB BACK..
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
This case bares no benefit to CCFC whatsoever other than its held up any return to Ricoh talks.
The best result would be a quick resolution either way. I fear it will drag on though and feel that some people need to open their eyes to why !!
The best result would be a quick resolution either way. I fear it will drag on though and feel that some people need to open their eyes to why !!
- Status