This is the UK in the 21st Century. Of course if you are a "successful businessman" means you are above certain aspects of the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibee87
Printable View
This is the UK in the 21st Century. Of course if you are a "successful businessman" means you are above certain aspects of the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibee87
As mentioned previously, SD currently discussing the detail of how the notice of order was served. Copy to all Rangers directors.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Court now going over details of how summons served on King
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Judge sounds like he might be amenable to such a defence seeing as King is a "successful businessman".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Judge: Mr King was never evasive. You [SD] made a conscious decision not to serve him out of jurisdiction (in South Africa).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SD: Decision made not to serve King with the order personally at a meeting. Order was simply left at home address of other directors.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Must be having one trouser leg rolled up that causes some kind of weight differential.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Brazil
I think that John James' gobsh*tery guesswork has lulled people into thinking this was a slam dunk.
Counsel for SD asked why other officers of RIFC have not been summoned to court along with King?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Paraphrasing the judge: Effect is that if you establish a limited company is in the contempt... directors can be pursued.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Judge "is there any particular reason you picked on Mr King?"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Discussion between SD and judge continues to centre around how the order was served, who on and the responsibility of company directors.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Counsel for SD says breach carried out by King personally, hence why he is in court
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is the heart of the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Because King is the only one to discuss the off limit things in the media :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
SD: Did King act in a way which was breach of order? And in doing so was he doing so on behalf of Rangers?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Judge: You've got to persuade me he was in breach because he discussed the contents of certain discussions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Judge: Start with the revelation of the discussions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Counsel for SD, there was a meeting on 12 June between King and Ashley which should not have been disclosed to media
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Judge asks if SD leaked details of meeting to press. SD say no. Judge asks if Mr Ashley has said so on oath.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In an email King blames "The leak of our meeting by the Ashley camp."
SD counsel denies that was what occured
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"If you want an injunction you have to come here with clean hands" judge tells counsel for Sports Direct
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Emails show King asked Sports direct to join him in issuing a 'joint statement" over June meeting
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Judge: Does Mike not communicate with the press sometimes? We don't know that Mike didn't leak it. Just that Justin Barnes is unaware of it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Email from SD shown to court, denies ever communicating with "Phil Mcgivery"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Judge: I've still not seen the contents you say were discussed [in TV interview]. SD: I'm coming to that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SD: There's an allegation by Mr King that we leaked it. No evidence. Judge: "Mike" hasn't disproved that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SD counsel King alleged SD briefed the press about June meeting. "You have not denied it" judge says. "Not part of this case" he replies
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Judge: Having difficulty with argument that mention of discussions breaches agreement. Yet to hear argument of content.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Judge: What's the cost of this exercise so far? It's nigh on £400,000 for both sides isn't it? Nods from King and co.
[emoji3]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk