Hicks and Gillette still seeking Damages.

Like a lingering fart....

The last paragraph and the flippant dismissal of the conduct of the defendants councils gives an insight into the perceived credibility of the claim being pursued.

The whole case is a joke Stuey. 

They weren't able to hand over any documentation to back up their claim in May and again in August. 

They insisted that RBS hand over everything they hold about the potential deals which the court granted and now they want to delay again because they still haven't found anything in all that documentation to pin anything on anyone. 

To add insult to injury they can't put up the cost of the f**king trial.

I hope they lose everything they own trying to pursue this as they deserve nothing from their ownership of our beloved Club.

In response to those of you asking if they could still have a claim on the Club if they win this case, the answer is a resounding no.

They have no interest in the Club, not now or ever, other than to make a fortune from it.  If they make that fortune through the courts they'll be happy to walk away.

If there was anything, even the slightest evidence in that documentation they would have found it by now and be all over this like bees round a honey pot. 

They are rock bottom skint after all their dodgy dealings and are hoping for one last big payday.

Hicks and Gillett must really be hurting for money.  They are clinging to their teeth with this hopeless cause.  I don't see how they can possibly prove the club was sold undervalue without a counter arguement matching it.
 
They are going to have to have pretty compelling evidence to win any outcome. 

 They haven't got a hope in hell, apart from the ever rising cost of the proceedings for which they are liable, the judge in the case has inferred their case is untenable.

Final Death Twitch methinks ...

They haven't got a hope in hell, apart from the ever rising cost of the proceedings for which they are liable, the judge in the case has inferred their case is untenable.

For me Stuey how the judge dealt with them during the takeover when they tried to take that injunction out was just priceless.  If there's one thing that our judiciary doesn't take kindly to, it's contempt of British Law and my god did he treat them with deserved contempt at that little trick.

Final Death Twitch methinks ...

Let's hope so Skip. 

Court of Appeal refuses to delay Liverpool FC trial

8 January 2013 | By Katy Dowell

The boardroom battle over Liverpool Football Club has attracted criticism from the Court of Appeal after the club’s former owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, attempted to delay the start of the High Court trial (see judgment).

The court battle, which is listed in The Lawyer Top Cases 2013, stems from a 2010 dispute about the £300m sale of the club to New England Sports Ventures (NESV). The pair allege that the club was sold at a “substantial undervalue” and said RBS “deliberately” blocked their attempts to refinance.

Mr Justice Smith ruled in October that the case should start in April and ordered the claimants to surrender security for costs. Hick and Gillett appealed this decision.

In this latest bout, 3 Verulam Buildings’ Ali Malek QC was instructed by Clyde & Co partner Paul Friedman for Hicks and Gillett to attempt to delay the start of the trial and vary the security for costs order.

It was argued that the claimants could not raise the funds to pay for the case should the trial begin in April and that the payment for security for costs should not be expedited, therefore delaying the case until late 2013 or early 2014.

In the judgment Lord Justice Lewison stated: “The parties’ positions fluctuated during the course of the [High Court] hearing, not least because Mr Malek dropped the bombshell that neither he nor his instructing solicitor could conduct the trial in June. But it was never suggested to the judge that the indication that he gave in his draft judgment back in August that he wished to see a trial early in 2013 was wrong in principle.”

Monckton Chambers’ Paul Harris QC, appearing for the joined defendant Sir Martin Broughton, argued alongside Erskine Chambers’ Richard Snowden QC, instructed for RBS, that the case should go ahead in April.

Lewison LJ emphasised the ferocity of the fight, in which RBS’s legal costs have already exceeded £1m ahead of the full trial. This comes as the judiciary prepares to fully implement the reforms put forward by Lord Justice Jackson aimed at reducing lengthy court costs.

The judge stated: “The extraordinary volume of paper, the extravagantly long skeleton arguments, which more resemble the Michelin Man than skeletons, and the inordinate citation of authority are quite inappropriate for an application dealing principally with case management decisions.”

According to the CoA ruling, the claimants have now paid £712,000 on account securing the future of the case, half of what they had offered to pay by way of security.

Lewison LJ, who sat alongside Lord Justices Tomlinson and McCombe, refused the appeal allowing the case to go ahead in April.

The dispute raises issues as to the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty and the duties on directors of group companies with potentially conflicting interests.

The legal line-up

For the claimants Tom Hicks and George Gillett, and their respective companies: 3 Verulam Buildings’ Ali Malek QC and Gregory Mitchell QC, and 4 Stone Buildings’ Richard Hill QC leading 3 Verulam Buildings’ Christopher Harris and Sebastian Isaac of One Essex Court, instructed by Clyde & Co partner Paul Friedman.

For the defendants Broughton, Purslow and Ayre: Monckton Chambers’ Paul Harris QC and Serle Court’s Philip Marshall QC leading Monckton Chambers’ Owain Draper, instructed by Couchmans partner Satish Khandke and Enyo Law partner George Maling.

For the defendant RBS: Erskine Chambers’ Richard Snowden QC leading James Potts of the same set and Fountain Court’s Patrick Goodall, instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partner Patrick Swain.

For the defendant NESV: Erskine Chambers’ David Chivers QC leading Philip Gillyon, instructed by Shearman & Sterling partner Jo Rickard.

   

http://www.thelawyer.com/court-of-appeal-refuses-to-delay-liverpool-fc-trial/1016329.article

I had to laugh at the part which said that proceedings were delayed because H&G couldn't afford to pay the necessary security.

Can't believe these assholes are still around

Can't believe these assholes are still around

Like a bad smell mate

Like a bad smell mate

They say when you owe the bank £100k and can't pay you have a problem BUT when you owe the bank £100m and cant pay then the bank has a problem!

I suspect that's where these fools are - if you're all in might as well try to grab hold of something

Final Death Twitch methinks ...

The riga mortis has well and truly set in Skip,Twit and tw*t are just about dead and buried and are no more than a bad nightmare to L.F.C.

I had to laugh at the part which said that proceedings were delayed because H&G couldn't afford to pay the necessary security.

Just a delaying tactic, as are the mountains of bullshit paperwork that has no relevance.
Both seem to be accepted practice in US courts, but thankfully the British system is different.

Security For Costs Application.

Standard procedure to make .....if you are being sued.
You ask for Security to make sure the people tacking the action have the money or assets behind them if they lose.

Stops what is called a Vexatious Claim  .. claim with no merit.

The riga mortis has well and truly set in Skip,Twit and T**t are just about dead and buried and are no more than a bad nightmare to L.F.C.

Thing is Billy - they f#cked with something that belonged to someone(s) else. All they really had was a parking permit and it was revoked.

it's a last throw of the dice from a couple of desperate, washed up old farts who've lost their money and reputation by conducting shoddy business all their lives.

Let them have a go, i'll enjoy it when they lose their last dime

These cu*ts not dead yet ?

Tick Tock.

If the books were cooked as they say, then yes unfortunately! Just wish they would scurry off into a corner somewhere and die.

But if H&G were the ones cooking, should they really get paid because they,  themselves, burnt the casserole?

I cant wait for it all to be finished... Then I hope we go after them for damages and NESV do the same in the US. I am sure they have said some daft sh*te somewhere in the paper - the whole 'epic swindle' is basically liable.

They will never be as poor as you or I - i hate to say it but they will never be what I want. That is them to become Randall and Mortimer living outside some restraunt homless...