Apologies for barging in, but that would be contempt of court for starters and assets that are in the UK jurisdiction are liable to be seized. Bargepole will of course be able to give a more exact and more detailed view.
@theRoyalBiscuit the vilification comment wasn't aimed in the slightest at you, more at the elements of the Reading fan base who were so vocal and so vile towards him and his family. Other Reading fans of a more temperate disposition are of course available, for what that may be worth.
Financial accounts make very interesting reading. Negative Net Worth £155M at 30 June 2022. Loss £21M. If they lose the case they cannot pay without further cash injections from the owner.
The Stadium is registered as a Community Asset. also if rumours are true, is security on a loan from a Chinese Bank. How would this affect the resolution, if both the stadium and Bearwood are owned by Renhe Sports management? Not sure if they are, with all the devious ways Dai has worked his dealings with RFC.
it is unlikely that Couhig’s case will make it to court. He is trying to create an obstacle to any future sale of Reading FC that any future buyer would insist the seller gets rid of by settling the case before the sale transaction can complete. It’s the same process as he used with Derby.
Civil matters cannot be appealed to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court by the losing party without the Court’s permission which will be given only if the losing party can demonstrate a failure of legal process or serious legal error not simply because he doesn’t like the verdict. That outcome feels very unlikely.
with respect to @bargepole , he is not a lawyer involved in large complicated legal claims. His expertise is sorting out parking tickets…..
With respect to @DevC , private parking tickets only make up about 10% of my caseload these days. For example, I have two cases coming up in January, one involving business rates, and the other about leasehold service charges, both involving thousands of £££.
It is correct that appeals to a higher court require the losing party to seek permission to appeal, citing an error in law by the original Judge, or a finding of fact that was not reasonable on the evidence provided. I was involved in the ParkingEye v Beavis case, which went all the way to the Supreme Court in 2015.
Whether or not Couhig's case makes it all the way, will depend on what the Defendant files in response, and what the Master of the High Court, who acts as a gatekeeper for this type of case, decides in terms of whether the Claimant's and Defendant's pleadings have any merit.
Bargie wheels away and knee slides along Threadneedle Street arms out in crucifix reflecting the Scales of Justice statue that looks down upon the special one with motherly pride.
Parking Eye v Beavis was a test case, if I remember, whereby the legal system wanted to determine whether private parking tickets were enforcable. In the first hearing the judge found for the parking company and against the member of the public. The judge specifically complained that the representation for the member of the public was amateurish. I assume that would have been you @bargepole . Proper lawyers took over the appeal to CoA and Supreme Court. History is here for anyone interested. https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/parkingeye-vs-beavis/
Whether Couhig's case makes it to court depends on whether the parties settle in advance. Couhig's legal strategy will be to do as little and spend as little on this case as he can but leave it in progress to act as a buggeration factor in any sale. It is extremely unlikely to get beyond the High Court if it even makes it there.
Bast*rd stole my top place in the Sams Prediction contest. Needs to be brought down a peg or two IMHO.......
I am sure he is good at what he does and provides a valuable service but honestly there is a world of difference between that level of case and the sort of case Couhig is bringing. I wouldn't see him as an expert in this matter (as his posts on this thread frankly confirm).
@DevC , it wasn't me who represented Mr Beavis at the original County Court hearing. The person who did so, focused exclusively on the penalties argument, and I tried to persuade them that other considerations, such as the lack of standing to claim for damages arising from land that they didn't own, should have been included, but they didn't listen.
Once this got to the appeal stage, I found a KC who was prepared to take on the case pro bono. However, he had no previous experience in this type of case, and I believe I could have done a better job if allowed to address the court. Sadly, that didn't happen, and the Supreme Court lordships ruled by 6 to 1 in favour of the parking company.
We'll see what happens with the Couhig case. Once Renhe have filed a Defence, the documents will become available in the public domain. Having read the brief summary of the claim on the Reading Chronicle website, my view is that Redwood Holdings (aka RC) are making a speculative claim, relying upon the expectation of future profits that may or may not be realistic. However, it seems undeniable that the terms of the period of exclusivity were breached, so this could go either way, if not settled beforehand.
IF you were the one sourcing the QC (not KC in those days of course), it would seem a strange decision by you to go with one with no expertise in this type of case. Did you not check his areas of expertise first?
It would surely be difficult for anyone to know whether the terms of the period of exclusivity were breached without reading the detailed exclusivity agreement. Odd thing for anyone with even the basic legal knowledge to believe it is appropriate to form a conclusion without doing so, especially if only relying on a newspaper report of a claim made by the complaining party.
He did have a good track record in winning cases based upon the penalties argument, which was the only ground of appeal that was permitted by the court. But, as it turned out, this proved to be the wrong argument, as I had said all along.
Re: the Couhig case, the Chronicle have seen the documents, so it's fair to assume that their summary is accurate. But as I've stated, I cannot reach any firm conclusion without seeing the particulars, and Defence response, in full. And of course, regardless of what I think, the only opinions that matter are those of the High Court judges.
So the QC you claim to have sourced in the case who had no experience in this type of case now does have experience in the element of the case that was allowed to be argued in the Appeals Court. You nonetheless believe you would have done better than the QC but you wanted to witter on about other arguments that you say the court had already specifically barred from being discussed. Would it be best do you think to put the shovel down and stop further digging?
No credible legal representative would assume a newspaper article reporting the arguments advanced by one side of a legal case was necessarily a fair representation of the legal position. You say you now cannot reach any firm conclusion without seeing the particulars having only a few minutes before claimed "However, it seems undeniable that the terms of the period of exclusivity were breached" which seems surely to be suggesting a pretty firm conclusion had been reached based on the seemingly impeccably reliable reporting, in your judgement, of Reading's local equivalent of the Bucks Free Press..
Comments
@bargepole , what would be the resulting action/s if Dai refuses to pay up, should he lose the case?
Mrs Wing isn’t going to like Kingston on Hull (not exactly Kingston upon Thames). But Beverley is nice in a parochial East Riding kinda a way.
She dealt with Middlesborough, so can probably deal with Hull if the money's right!
Apologies for barging in, but that would be contempt of court for starters and assets that are in the UK jurisdiction are liable to be seized. Bargepole will of course be able to give a more exact and more detailed view.
@theRoyalBiscuit the vilification comment wasn't aimed in the slightest at you, more at the elements of the Reading fan base who were so vocal and so vile towards him and his family. Other Reading fans of a more temperate disposition are of course available, for what that may be worth.
The named Defendant in this case is not Dai Yongge, it is Renhe Sports Management Co Ltd., whose registered address is the Select Car Leasing Stadium.
So if they lose, the Court can order seizure of their assets.
Financial accounts make very interesting reading. Negative Net Worth £155M at 30 June 2022. Loss £21M. If they lose the case they cannot pay without further cash injections from the owner.
Thanks.
The Stadium is registered as a Community Asset. also if rumours are true, is security on a loan from a Chinese Bank. How would this affect the resolution, if both the stadium and Bearwood are owned by Renhe Sports management? Not sure if they are, with all the devious ways Dai has worked his dealings with RFC.
I got married in Beverley as my in-laws were up there. I believe it can get a bit feisty when the squaddies are beered up.
it is unlikely that Couhig’s case will make it to court. He is trying to create an obstacle to any future sale of Reading FC that any future buyer would insist the seller gets rid of by settling the case before the sale transaction can complete. It’s the same process as he used with Derby.
Civil matters cannot be appealed to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court by the losing party without the Court’s permission which will be given only if the losing party can demonstrate a failure of legal process or serious legal error not simply because he doesn’t like the verdict. That outcome feels very unlikely.
with respect to @bargepole , he is not a lawyer involved in large complicated legal claims. His expertise is sorting out parking tickets…..
World class use of "with respect" there
With respect to @DevC , private parking tickets only make up about 10% of my caseload these days. For example, I have two cases coming up in January, one involving business rates, and the other about leasehold service charges, both involving thousands of £££.
It is correct that appeals to a higher court require the losing party to seek permission to appeal, citing an error in law by the original Judge, or a finding of fact that was not reasonable on the evidence provided. I was involved in the ParkingEye v Beavis case, which went all the way to the Supreme Court in 2015.
Whether or not Couhig's case makes it all the way, will depend on what the Defendant files in response, and what the Master of the High Court, who acts as a gatekeeper for this type of case, decides in terms of whether the Claimant's and Defendant's pleadings have any merit.
1-0 to bargie!
🤺
Back of the net….
Bargie wheels away and knee slides along Threadneedle Street arms out in crucifix reflecting the Scales of Justice statue that looks down upon the special one with motherly pride.
I’ve been to the Supreme Court (for work) three times. 100% record. Lost every time
Parking Eye v Beavis was a test case, if I remember, whereby the legal system wanted to determine whether private parking tickets were enforcable. In the first hearing the judge found for the parking company and against the member of the public. The judge specifically complained that the representation for the member of the public was amateurish. I assume that would have been you @bargepole . Proper lawyers took over the appeal to CoA and Supreme Court. History is here for anyone interested. https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/parkingeye-vs-beavis/
Whether Couhig's case makes it to court depends on whether the parties settle in advance. Couhig's legal strategy will be to do as little and spend as little on this case as he can but leave it in progress to act as a buggeration factor in any sale. It is extremely unlikely to get beyond the High Court if it even makes it there.
1-1. However dangerous ground insinuating bargie is an amateur!
Grab your popcorn. Bargie vs Dev is potential box office gold.
Bast*rd stole my top place in the Sams Prediction contest. Needs to be brought down a peg or two IMHO.......
I am sure he is good at what he does and provides a valuable service but honestly there is a world of difference between that level of case and the sort of case Couhig is bringing. I wouldn't see him as an expert in this matter (as his posts on this thread frankly confirm).
@DevC , it wasn't me who represented Mr Beavis at the original County Court hearing. The person who did so, focused exclusively on the penalties argument, and I tried to persuade them that other considerations, such as the lack of standing to claim for damages arising from land that they didn't own, should have been included, but they didn't listen.
Once this got to the appeal stage, I found a KC who was prepared to take on the case pro bono. However, he had no previous experience in this type of case, and I believe I could have done a better job if allowed to address the court. Sadly, that didn't happen, and the Supreme Court lordships ruled by 6 to 1 in favour of the parking company.
We'll see what happens with the Couhig case. Once Renhe have filed a Defence, the documents will become available in the public domain. Having read the brief summary of the claim on the Reading Chronicle website, my view is that Redwood Holdings (aka RC) are making a speculative claim, relying upon the expectation of future profits that may or may not be realistic. However, it seems undeniable that the terms of the period of exclusivity were breached, so this could go either way, if not settled beforehand.
IF you were the one sourcing the QC (not KC in those days of course), it would seem a strange decision by you to go with one with no expertise in this type of case. Did you not check his areas of expertise first?
It would surely be difficult for anyone to know whether the terms of the period of exclusivity were breached without reading the detailed exclusivity agreement. Odd thing for anyone with even the basic legal knowledge to believe it is appropriate to form a conclusion without doing so, especially if only relying on a newspaper report of a claim made by the complaining party.
2-1 @DevC into injury time
I'm setting off pyro.
Warming up the "awful thread, this" auto poster....
He did have a good track record in winning cases based upon the penalties argument, which was the only ground of appeal that was permitted by the court. But, as it turned out, this proved to be the wrong argument, as I had said all along.
Re: the Couhig case, the Chronicle have seen the documents, so it's fair to assume that their summary is accurate. But as I've stated, I cannot reach any firm conclusion without seeing the particulars, and Defence response, in full. And of course, regardless of what I think, the only opinions that matter are those of the High Court judges.
So the QC you claim to have sourced in the case who had no experience in this type of case now does have experience in the element of the case that was allowed to be argued in the Appeals Court. You nonetheless believe you would have done better than the QC but you wanted to witter on about other arguments that you say the court had already specifically barred from being discussed. Would it be best do you think to put the shovel down and stop further digging?
No credible legal representative would assume a newspaper article reporting the arguments advanced by one side of a legal case was necessarily a fair representation of the legal position. You say you now cannot reach any firm conclusion without seeing the particulars having only a few minutes before claimed "However, it seems undeniable that the terms of the period of exclusivity were breached" which seems surely to be suggesting a pretty firm conclusion had been reached based on the seemingly impeccably reliable reporting, in your judgement, of Reading's local equivalent of the Bucks Free Press..
Dai, if you're reading this (no pun intended), please please just sell the club. This thread is too much to take.