Mr Higg's Money Spinner due for the Court of appeal 26/27 January Reference: A3/2015/2702 Title: Sainsbury''s Supermarkets Limited v Bristol Rovers (1883) Limited Type: Appeal Appeal / Application: from the order of Mrs Justice Proudman Chancery Division dated 31-Jul-15 Hearing Status: Float on 26-Jan-16 or 27-Jan-16 - estimated length (in hours): 15:00 Venue: London Constitution: LORD JUSTICE LAWS LORD JUSTICE MCCOMBE LORD JUSTICE FLOYD Case results: Track Your Case: Current Status: Awaiting a hearing - see Hearing Status Tracking Information: 17-Dec-15: Bundle(s) approved 11-Nov-15: Case passed to List Office 12-Oct-15: Case passed to List Office 17-Aug-15: Letter sent to applicant/solicitor to request bundles and/or documents Last Updated: 14-Jan-16
Club statement regarding next weeks court visit.... Our appeal against the High Court decision in the Club’s dispute with Sainsbury’s will be heard on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week in the Court of Appeal. The format of the hearing will involve Mr David Matthias QC, barrister for the club, opening by outlining why we have launched the appeal, going on to present our case and the reasons we consider the High Court’s decision should be reversed. Mr Mark Wonnacott QC, barrister for Sainsbury’s will then explain why the supermarket feels they are in the right and why the High Court decision should stand. The initial submissions are expected to take most of the first two days of the hearing. Both sides will then have an opportunity to make any further points in response. The three Lord Justices hearing the appeal, LJ Laws, LJ McCombe and LJ Floyd are then likely to retire to consider their decision. Our lawyers have told us the court could take several weeks to finalise its judgment – there is no specific timescale for this. If any of you want to come to the court and listen to the cases being presented, it should begin at 10.30am on Tuesday and take place in the Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2A 2LL. We would like to thank everyone for their continued support during this process. All of the directors, at one time or another, have been stopped by supporters wishing to pass on their good luck to the club. We can assure you we will continue to fight to secure the long term future and sustainability of our club. Nick Higgs Chairman http://www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news...t-on-tuesday-2914827.aspx#Slf8BcGO2ighR1sJ.99
The case is scheduled in Court 75 today. (not before 10.30.) Before LORD JUSTICE LAWS LORD JUSTICE MCCOMBE and LORD JUSTICE FLOYD Not Before half-past 10 APPLICATION 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. It will be interesting if the three new judges reverse a decision made by one of their own! Of course Mrs Proudman did say her decision was somewhat open to question.............. As Gastro said, it's a bit like reading 900 odd pages of Dicken's Bleak House where the only winners were the legal profession who were lining their pockets by dragging it out.
Club statement.... Our appeal against the High Court decision in the Club’s dispute with Sainsbury’s, which was expected to take three days, ended this afternoon at 4.00pm after only two days. Rovers Chairman Nick Higgs said;"We were very pleased that we received a fair hearing and now the Judges have retired to consider their verdict, which is not expected until March." No further comment on the case will be made until such time as a decision has been reached... http://www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news...ter-two-days-2924424.aspx#SzJbB4kUY68rLJYo.99
Don't know what to make of that! Is it a good thing it only took 2 days or not? I got the impression it was a legal minefield of interpretation and technicalities that would take a team of judicial experts ages to sort out , having listened to 3 days of evidence and submissions etc. Didn't think they'd have it wrapped up and be home in time for ' Pointless ' at the end of day 2. Doesn't sound like there was as much to talk about as I expected. Just got to wait and hope now.
Both sides were given a full day to say what they wanted and both get a chance on day 3 to give any responses to what either party said in day 1 or day 2. Both sides didnt need a full day and apparently after 2 and a half hours into the 2nd day, it was all done. Not sure if this means it may be quicker for the decision to be made or not. Basically, the last judge who went in Sainsburys favour did say she could be wrong with how she interpreted the facts. Lets hope Rovers in the last 48 hours have managed to presuade 3 new judges that the original judge was wrong indeed. It all boils down to if Sainsburys had the rights to end the agreement after the delivery hours extension was refused. Could they do more to have got it accepted? Thats the million pound question - or should I say 30 million pound question! Seeing we made a 2nd application for Sainsburys to get extended delivery hours and done it properly. The result? The appliaction was accepted. We, by doing this, have proved Sainsburys didnt do enough and was clearly intent of making it fail so they could pull out. Just got to make these 3 judges accept this. Sounds easy but we didnt make the last judge accept this though!
The Post are reporting a decision should be in March! (no exact date though given). http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristo...pected-March/story-28618932-detail/story.html
On Sapphires entry of yesterday it says about further evidence unless anyone who was at the court can tell us otherwise maybe they were not interested in the old evidence just the new points from either side
No idea. I would expect the press to have mentioned the new evidence though! They havent, so its either poor journalism or no new evidence
I read somewhere that internal memos within Sainsburys were not accepted as evidence in the original judgement. I believe these memos may have been clear in their intention that Sainsburys would find any means possible to wriggle out of the contract.
Sainsburys have admitted they acted in bad faith to terminate the contract. But they insist it was still done legally.
