By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I have had the opportunity of investigating many previous claims around the time before we went into Administration. I was close to many who gave me what appeared to be plausible evidence. However, when I looked into it more and spoke to those who were part of the club at that time such evidence did not stack up and proved to be false.
Big egos with little or no real knowledge is often the case.
Is this one another false dawn/false prophet. I think so!
"There has been two or three tribunals from former workers who took action only to see the club pay just before it started"
Seems to happen an awful lot with many companies. They seem to hope that the employees will not have the spirit for a fight and will go away. It is wrong but it does happen frequently I believe
I think you must have missed my "parental responsibility" bit. That encompasses what you say but fishing will be a chance to discuss such thinks. Better that sitting in front of a television/radio/internet
Anyway I suspect Patred is already fishing with his son :)
You cannot refuse to"communicate" Nick Judgement will have beed applied in default at a very early stage. There is a strict court procedure and time limits. That is the problem with just reading bits on it.
Is there a link to this "rumour" or did the UTS hear it in a pub?
Nick, why do you say the court did not have both sides of the argument?
Procedure - Claimant asks for payment with Defendent refuses and probably gives reasons.
Arbritration clause of contract evoked by one party. Decision given but SFC do not accept and so Claimant issues court procedings with a Statement of Claim. Defendent will have entered a defence or the Claimant would have applied to the court for judgementin defaut.
After defence served, evidence from both sides will have been served on the court. Failure to do so from either side would have again meant a request for judgement in default,
Court date set and Bundles have to be filed in court by both sides within a certain period before court hearing. It seems at that stage the Defendent decided not to proceed. That may be because the Counsel they would have appointed to represent them in court indicated their chances were low. It may have been that once a Judge was appointed for the case they realised he had a record for sympathy to Claimants and their evidence would not come up to scratch for such a judge.
The Defendents simply indicated they would not be attending to defend the claim.
Hardly a case of the court only knowing one side!
I am not defending SFC's behavour here. On what I can deduce from the report and the fact they decided not to defend so late in the claim is poor and not what I would expect from a competent. I agree with Nicks views on that.
I have taken a case to the Commercial court valued at £1m and won.
I have also taked a case to the RoyalCourts of Justice and has a 11 day trial finished after one day because the Lord Justice (Judge) indicated to my QC in open court that, having read all the evidence (we had 11 experts on both sides who could not agree) he preferred their evidence! Had to pay the claim of just under £1m and costs of both side at £200,000 so I know what I am talking about.