|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Jan 25, 2016 22:45:34 GMT
From The Chancery Division
FINAL DECISIONS
A3/2015/2702(B) Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited -v- - Bristol Rovers (1883) Limited. Application of Defendant for permission to rely on further evidence.
APPEAL
A3/2015/2702 Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited -v- Bristol Rovers (1883) Limited. Appeal of Defendant from the order of Mrs Justice Proudman, dated 31st July 2015, filed 14th August 2015.
We are definitely the defendant. Say what you want about house purchases on Filton ave. it's to late for js to apply to use it in court.
Wonder what our new evidence is though. A catalogue of other sites js didn't show good faith and pulled out at the easiest opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Jan 25, 2016 23:03:25 GMT
Whatever it is Lulworth, if you are correct, and we do somehow win, it's for that reason Sainsburys would probably appeal themselves. They would, as I understand it, have to go to the Supreme Court. That would take possibly up to 3 years. We couldn't hold on that long. The reason as you rightly say is because they have a fair old number of similar cases that may or may not be able to then go to court.
|
|
|
|
Post by northsidegas on Jan 25, 2016 23:10:17 GMT
Sainsbury’s desire to terminate the Agreement if it lawfully could was plain from the summer of 2013. Indeed on 13 July 2013 Mr Neil Sachdev, a Property Director at Sainsbury’s, wrote in an e-mail that “we don’t want to do this now as economics have changed”; on 7 August 2013 he wrote that he “hopes the JR [see below] succeeds”, and on 15 November 2013, Mr Daniel Cizek, a public affairs manager at Sainsbury’s, said in an e-mail:
“We have the TRASH JR excuse to fall back on. Can easily say the uncertainty it created made it impossible to commit to developing in the medium term.”
|
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Jan 25, 2016 23:24:34 GMT
KTF
Any day now
|
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Jan 25, 2016 23:32:48 GMT
Whatever it is Lulworth, if you are correct, and we do somehow win, it's for that reason Sainsburys would probably appeal themselves. They would, as I understand it, have to go to the Supreme Court. That would take possibly up to 3 years. We couldn't hold on that long. The reason as you rightly say is because they have a fair old number of similar cases that may or may not be able to then go to court. Are you hoping we lose mate? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2016 23:49:33 GMT
Whatever it is Lulworth, if you are correct, and we do somehow win, it's for that reason Sainsburys would probably appeal themselves. They would, as I understand it, have to go to the Supreme Court. That would take possibly up to 3 years. We couldn't hold on that long. The reason as you rightly say is because they have a fair old number of similar cases that may or may not be able to then go to court. Are you hoping we lose mate? He does give that impression doesn't he ! |
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Jan 26, 2016 7:27:55 GMT
Are you hoping we lose mate? He does give that impression doesn't he ! It would stop the uncertainy at least! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2016 7:32:05 GMT
Whatever it is Lulworth, if you are correct, and we do somehow win, it's for that reason Sainsburys would probably appeal themselves. They would, as I understand it, have to go to the Supreme Court. That would take possibly up to 3 years. We couldn't hold on that long. The reason as you rightly say is because they have a fair old number of similar cases that may or may not be able to then go to court. Are you hoping we lose mate? I've been saying it for months he has an agenda against Nick Higgs. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 26, 2016 7:56:08 GMT
He does give that impression doesn't he ! It would stop the uncertainy at least! After all we can easily cope with £10m debt if we lose! What's the betting the "consortium" disappear should we lose? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2016 8:11:30 GMT
It would stop the uncertainy at least! After all we can easily cope with £10m debt if we lose! What's the betting the "consortium" disappear should we lose? Hahaha |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2016 8:19:44 GMT
It would stop the uncertainy at least! After all we can easily cope with £10m debt if we lose! What's the betting the "consortium" disappear should we lose? How can something disappear if it has never appeared..? |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Jan 26, 2016 8:30:04 GMT
www.itv.com/news/west/2016-01-25/bristol-rovers-new-stadium-move-still-on-for-this-summer-says-chairman/The chairman of Bristol Rovers has told ITV News he is confident the club will complete a long-awaited move to a new stadium and could start work building it as early as this summer. Speaking ahead of a High Court appeal tomorrow over Sainsbury's decision to pull out of an agreement to buy the club's current home (The Memorial Ground in Horfield), chairman Nick Higgs said Rovers needed a new stadium to be sustainable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 26, 2016 8:31:57 GMT
After all we can easily cope with £10m debt if we lose! What's the betting the "consortium" disappear should we lose? How can something disappear if it has never appeared..? True , I was going to say "talk of" |
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Jan 26, 2016 8:33:03 GMT
Whatever it is Lulworth, if you are correct, and we do somehow win, it's for that reason Sainsburys would probably appeal themselves. They would, as I understand it, have to go to the Supreme Court. That would take possibly up to 3 years. We couldn't hold on that long. The reason as you rightly say is because they have a fair old number of similar cases that may or may not be able to then go to court. Only if the appeal court judges let them |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2016 9:29:26 GMT
Are you hoping we lose mate? I've been saying it for months he has an agenda against Nick Higgs. That's probably because he knows him.  |
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Jan 26, 2016 9:30:47 GMT
Why would I want us to lose? Still waiting on you GasheadGaz. Any day now?
|
|
|
|
Post by peterpirate on Jan 26, 2016 10:11:50 GMT
Have they put 10m in nh hands on court steps yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Jan 26, 2016 10:17:43 GMT
Have they put 10m in nh hands on court steps yet? Yes but he said no because he wanted Nectar points because you cannot trace them.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2016 10:21:31 GMT
Have they put 10m in nh hands on court steps yet? Dunno but just saw nicky at Bristol airport queuing at the Barbados gate. |
|
|
|
Post by Mancgas has left the building on Jan 26, 2016 10:37:22 GMT
As I understand it this is not a new trial, just an appeal on the decisions in the last trial. As such people hoping for killer new evidence will be disappointed.
However getting a positive decision on the issue that the Judge in last trial made wrong decisions on what was allowed as evidence, and the effect that those issues being in evidence would have had on the final decision, is what I assume our legal team have used to persuade Mr Higgs to spend more money on another trial.
|
|
