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..
The club should get Dev and Bargy on the pitch to scrap this out as half-time entertainment. Give each of them a wad of legal papers to whack the other with.
The other arguments I was referring to, should have been raised at the original County Court hearing, but were not. So the only ground of appeal was the penalties issue, which HHJ Moloney himself said that he may have been wrong about. That left us with no choice but to proceed to the Court of Appeal on that basis. In hindsight, the whole saga could and should have been handled better, but I hadn't even completed my law degree in 2015.
Regarding the Couhig case, the following are what has been published by the RC. I doubt that they would have made up the quote or the figures:
However, Redwood and Mr Couhig believe "In early May 2024 or thereabouts, Renhe or persons acting on a document headed 'Reading FC-Investment Opportunity Incredible immediate opportunity to acquire the club for a fraction of its worth'. The said document invited a "Submission of Letter of Intent & Proof of Funds (£45m) to the club by 22 May 2024".
This was a breach of the exclusivity agreement, and the document, seen by the Reading Chronicle, states: "Renhe's breach of the Exclusivity Provisions in the [Letter of Intent] has caused Redwood the loss of a chance to acquire Renhe's shares in Reading FC. It is Redwood's case that the chance of acquiring the shares in Reading FC from Renhe (but for Renhe's breach of contract) was at least 50%. Redwood reserves the right to argue at trial that the lost chance was significantly higher than 50%. If it be determined at trial that Redwood's chance of acquiring the shares in Reading FC from Renhe was a percentage more or less than 50%, then Redwood claims damages accordingly."
In addition to the loss of £12,000,000 from the potential profits, fees of over £300,000 are also being claimed.
This is for:
£288,092.14+ VAT for legal fees
£908 legal fees in British Virgin Islands
£4,124.50 on flights and accommodation for Due Diligence in May
£5,627.81 on flights and accommodation for Due Diligence in September
A court date is yet to be set, but Redwood Holdings are filing for a total of £12,298,752.45.
Interest on top of this includes a daily rate of £2,611.38 per day, and already stands at £80,952.75
Too late. This thread has already been turned into a popular Japanese cartoon, shown on Sunday evenings on TV Tokyo. (With an uncanny portrayal of drcongo looking on)
It may well be the case that the other arguments you refer to should have been raised in the County Court hearing but the QC (or KC as you wrongly refer to his status at the time) was not part of that case. You suggested that the QC didn't have experience in the case law required and that you would have done better than him, and then confirmed that he did in fact have experience in the area that was allowed to be discussed and that he focused on in the Court of Appeal while you still wanted to drone on about aspects that had been barred from the Appeal Court Hearing. No wonder the County Court judge was so critical of your sides case in the original hearing and insisted that proper lawyers handled the case in the CoA and Supreme Court not someone halfway through his law degree!
You have cut and pasted an article from Reading's equivalent of the Bucks Free Press which itself has cut and pasted an extract from the party bringing the action's letter of complaint. From just that source you reached the firm conclusion that "However, it seems undeniable that the terms of the period of exclusivity were breached" before going on 10 minutes later to acknowledge that you couldn't possibly reach a firm conclusion on the evidence available to you.
I do hope you are a little more disciplined in your thinking and presentation of the parking ticket advocacy you take on. Not hard otherwise to see why judges get so frustrated at amateurs pretending to be lawyers
I'll leave it there. Have a great Christmas, @bargepole
I used the phrase 'it seems', which is not a firm conclusion.
As for presentation and advocacy in other cases, parking ticket and otherwise, I have a provable overall success rate of 81% for my clients over a 7 year period since I started my company. So the majority of Judges in those cases agreed with my submissions, and my clients' feedback gives me a 4.7 rating on Trustpilot:
Comments
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.
I need more Popcorn and as we're heading into the afternoon I may crack open a lager to enjoy Season 2 of Gasroom Legal!
I logged off before the special Christmas episode of 'Crown Court' started.
I hope @DevC and @bargepole are not charging someone for 'hours spent outlining case on football forum'
The club should get Dev and Bargy on the pitch to scrap this out as half-time entertainment. Give each of them a wad of legal papers to whack the other with.
The other arguments I was referring to, should have been raised at the original County Court hearing, but were not. So the only ground of appeal was the penalties issue, which HHJ Moloney himself said that he may have been wrong about. That left us with no choice but to proceed to the Court of Appeal on that basis. In hindsight, the whole saga could and should have been handled better, but I hadn't even completed my law degree in 2015.
Regarding the Couhig case, the following are what has been published by the RC. I doubt that they would have made up the quote or the figures:
However, Redwood and Mr Couhig believe "In early May 2024 or thereabouts, Renhe or persons acting on a document headed 'Reading FC-Investment Opportunity Incredible immediate opportunity to acquire the club for a fraction of its worth'. The said document invited a "Submission of Letter of Intent & Proof of Funds (£45m) to the club by 22 May 2024".
This was a breach of the exclusivity agreement, and the document, seen by the Reading Chronicle, states: "Renhe's breach of the Exclusivity Provisions in the [Letter of Intent] has caused Redwood the loss of a chance to acquire Renhe's shares in Reading FC. It is Redwood's case that the chance of acquiring the shares in Reading FC from Renhe (but for Renhe's breach of contract) was at least 50%. Redwood reserves the right to argue at trial that the lost chance was significantly higher than 50%. If it be determined at trial that Redwood's chance of acquiring the shares in Reading FC from Renhe was a percentage more or less than 50%, then Redwood claims damages accordingly."
In addition to the loss of £12,000,000 from the potential profits, fees of over £300,000 are also being claimed.
This is for:
A court date is yet to be set, but Redwood Holdings are filing for a total of £12,298,752.45.
Interest on top of this includes a daily rate of £2,611.38 per day, and already stands at £80,952.75
Too late. This thread has already been turned into a popular Japanese cartoon, shown on Sunday evenings on TV Tokyo. (With an uncanny portrayal of drcongo looking on)
Good warm up for the Fury Usyk fight
It may well be the case that the other arguments you refer to should have been raised in the County Court hearing but the QC (or KC as you wrongly refer to his status at the time) was not part of that case. You suggested that the QC didn't have experience in the case law required and that you would have done better than him, and then confirmed that he did in fact have experience in the area that was allowed to be discussed and that he focused on in the Court of Appeal while you still wanted to drone on about aspects that had been barred from the Appeal Court Hearing. No wonder the County Court judge was so critical of your sides case in the original hearing and insisted that proper lawyers handled the case in the CoA and Supreme Court not someone halfway through his law degree!
You have cut and pasted an article from Reading's equivalent of the Bucks Free Press which itself has cut and pasted an extract from the party bringing the action's letter of complaint. From just that source you reached the firm conclusion that "However, it seems undeniable that the terms of the period of exclusivity were breached" before going on 10 minutes later to acknowledge that you couldn't possibly reach a firm conclusion on the evidence available to you.
I do hope you are a little more disciplined in your thinking and presentation of the parking ticket advocacy you take on. Not hard otherwise to see why judges get so frustrated at amateurs pretending to be lawyers
I'll leave it there. Have a great Christmas, @bargepole
Another thread turns to people wittering about parking fine appeals. Jesus wept.
I think I saw someone mention KC and the Sunshine Band? Give it up, guys.
I used the phrase 'it seems', which is not a firm conclusion.
As for presentation and advocacy in other cases, parking ticket and otherwise, I have a provable overall success rate of 81% for my clients over a 7 year period since I started my company. So the majority of Judges in those cases agreed with my submissions, and my clients' feedback gives me a 4.7 rating on Trustpilot:
Smallclaimsadvisor Reviews | Read Customer Service Reviews of www.smallclaimsadvisor.co.uk
Can someone change the title of this tread to "bargepole v DevC"?
That would apply to almost every thread ...
I've always thought DevC might have been the alter ego of bargepole, seems not.
It would be interesting (to me anyway) to know the IQ scores of @DevC and @bargepole. Lady GaGa apparently has a score of 166.
Mine was 161 on the official Mensa test. Mind you, that was a few years ago, and I've probably lost a few braincells after fighting fires on here.