If we win ARB, CAT not needed. Extension specifically for 7 days requested. My belief is that the result of ARB might be known by 12th July. Thus the following happens: ARB we win - CAT not needed, PL get it struck off. ARB PL win - CAT proceeds. Full exposure. ARB PL win - PL successfully argue CAT not actually viable. PL get it struck off They are in order of our preference.
So if you are correct, that would mean that arbitration is already underway. Yet the way Staveley spoke yesterday, it doesn't appear that is the case. She said that it was "due to start". Even if she meant it was starting today, it surely would not be resolved by the end of this week?
I’m not an expert: but I understand that the deadline for all evidence has passed. The 3 amigos (barristers or whatever you call them) then deliberate on the evidence and review it. @Sheikh_of_Araby knows these things better than me. Then their findings (ARB starts) is deliberated with the parties involved and then they make a decision on said information. I think this extension (CAT) is to facilitate the final stages (start) of the arbitration.
Yes. That is what I believe. I’ve linked you to another post. “Caveat for future defamation of character case” This is my personal reasonable explanation for the CAT extension being granted.
Oh I didn’t answer your last question. All evidence is reviewed and final questions are asked and yes it is resolved very quickly. That’s what Arbitration is preferable over other forms of resolution. You pump all your evidence by a certain date. It is digested and reviewed by another date. Then final Questions are asked at ARB start and a resolution is quickly achieved. And the big win for the leading side is that it’s legally binding and completely set in stone. There is no challenge and there is no outside scrutiny. Hence why AS and co want it (now) in the open and they originally did because they are all Bound by confidentiality.
Remember Arbitration is a means to resolve things (quickly) and is used to facilitate fast resolutions which have legal standing and no outside objectivity. It’s the reason why PIF didn’t originally want the original ARB process offered by the PL at the time. It was on their terms. This ARB is on MA’s terms and specifically for separation.
Why did Staveley ask for it to be played out in public though at the weekend if it has already started, or was starting today? That is far too late, even if her wish was granted.
