PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

johnnytapia said:
There’s no difference: they’re all supremely intelligent and the best of the best. Pannick has won and lost some extremely “high-stakes” cases.
This will come down to evidence.
Click to expand...
I think barristers can make a difference but there are many variables. I’ve had superb £10k per day KCs have poor days and lose cases/hearings, seen other barristers who I just didn’t rate convince the judge of points that were wrong etc. It is really not an exact science. Lewis has his fans but Pannick is known as the very highest tier and a very nice guy to work with. And remember there are multiple other barristers and lawyers on both sides. Evidence will also be key - I agree.
 
halfcenturyup said:
No, but my great grandfather was a Charles Fletcher who was an aviator from Manchester, one of the first to get something up in the air, at Platt Fields iirc. He made his own rotary engines (cue Wankel jokes). John Alcock was an assistant of his for a while before teaming up with Brown.
Click to expand...
My great grandfather sold live chickens on Sheffield Market, any unsold "stock" were taken back home and lived with my Grandma and family, often over a weekend. My Gran said it was often difficult to sleep at night due to the noise the birds made. Chickens can fly but not a lot so I guess your great grandfather trumps mine!
 
slbsn said:
I think barristers can make a difference but there are many variables. I’ve had superb £10k per day KCs have poor days and lose cases/hearings, seen other barristers who I just didn’t rate convince the judge of points that were wrong etc. It is really not an exact science. Lewis has his fans but Pannick is known as the very highest tier and a very nice guy to work with. And remember there are multiple other barristers and lawyers on both sides. Evidence will also be key - I agree.
Click to expand...

Lewis is best known for his sports law work? Nothing in this case screams sports law. I would imagine Pannick is more experienced in general law, including what this case is about: contract law and financial irregularity? Or is that too simple?
 
hammocity said:
My great grandfather sold live chickens on Sheffield Market, any unsold "stock" were taken back home and lived with my Grandma and family, often over a weekend. My Gran said it was often difficult to sleep at night due to the noise the birds made. Chickens can fly but not a lot so I guess your great grandfather trumps mine!
Click to expand...

I would like to think the engineering background is why my posts are so incisive. But then I remember one of my other great grandfathers was a circus performer which probably better explains most of my posts.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I would like to think the engineering background is why my posts are so incisive. But then I remember one of my other great grandfathers was a circus performer which probably better explains most of my posts.
Click to expand...
They could have teamed up for the original wing-walk display..!!
 
slbsn said:
I think barristers can make a difference but there are many variables. I’ve had superb £10k per day KCs have poor days and lose cases/hearings, seen other barristers who I just didn’t rate convince the judge of points that were wrong etc. It is really not an exact science.
Click to expand...
As a QC (as he then was) once said to me, advocacy is a marginal art.
 
halfcenturyup said:
No, but my great grandfather was a Charles Fletcher who was an aviator from Manchester, one of the first to get something up in the air, at Platt Fields iirc. He made his own rotary engines (cue Wankel jokes). John Alcock was an assistant of his for a while before teaming up with Brown.
Click to expand...
My daughter in law is the great granddaughter of RG Mitchel (Spitfire) fame.

Not sure why I mentioned it apart from desperately trying to have a foot in the conversation.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
As a layman I 100% accept this, but must admit I am completely baffled. How does all that evidence get mapped into the 130 specific charges across 13 years, at least 13 versions of the PL Handbook and 13 sets of accounts. Let's say eg, Simon Pearce was questioned again about his famous email which related to one sponsorship and in one FY. What specifc charges are relevant to his testimony ? Was this the reason it took 18 months to reach a hearing, ie the mappings were all agreed beforehand. I can see one hell of a master spreadsheet would be needed to manage the complexity. I have always assumed the ruling will state an outcome on every single charge, Maybe it will just do 13 outcomes, so one per year.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t he just claim the same as the guys who was asked about referencing ‘Gilf states’
- ‘That was just a general term Inused st the time. I didn’t specifically mean it exactly so’
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
As a QC (as he then was) once said to me, advocacy is a marginal art.
Click to expand...
I always thought 'Marginal Art' was the doodles I used to draw at the side of the pages when pretending to read tomes such as 'Crime and Punishment' or 'Little Dorrit' or 'Middlemarch'..

(sorry..! couldn't resist..! you make an valid, important point and I'm a very naughty boy for my trivial response!)
 
johnevans said:
I always thought 'Marginal Art' was the doodles I used to draw at the side of the pages when pretending to read tomes such as 'Crime and Punishment' or 'Little Dorrit' or 'Middlemarch'..

(sorry..! couldn't resist..! you make an valid, important point and I'm a very naughty boy for my trivial response!)
Click to expand...
No pushback from this quarter for a trivial response!
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
As a layman I 100% accept this, but must admit I am completely baffled. How does all that evidence get mapped into the 130 specific charges across 13 years, at least 13 versions of the PL Handbook and 13 sets of accounts. Let's say eg, Simon Pearce was questioned again about his famous email which related to one sponsorship and in one FY. What specifc charges are relevant to his testimony ? Was this the reason it took 18 months to reach a hearing, ie the mappings were all agreed beforehand. I can see one hell of a master spreadsheet would be needed to manage the complexity. I have always assumed the ruling will state an outcome on every single charge, Maybe it will just do 13 outcomes, so one per year.
Click to expand...
This merely highlights why the number of breaches is irrelevant. In fact the issues in play can be mapped into relatively few baskets and not all witnesses will be relevant to all baskets.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Lewis is best known for his sports law work? Nothing in this case screams sports law. I would imagine Pannick is more experienced in general law, including what this case is about: contract law and financial irregularity? Or is that too simple?
Click to expand...
Sports law barely exists in reality as it’s a combination of various types of law depending on the case but Lewis seems very experienced on acting for regulators.

On the face of it, Pannick is not a typical pick for this case but that is why City brought in Philip Marshall KC too who is much more of a conventional civil fraud/accounting irregularity specialist (he actually was the chosen barrister on the claimant side in a class action case against my company which we managed to stave off - that was all allegations of civil fraud/accounting issues/disclosure etc)
 
slbsn said:
This merely highlights why the number of breaches is irrelevant. In fact the issues in play can be mapped into relatively few baskets and not all witnesses will be relevant to all baskets.
Click to expand...
Stefan as a complete novice on this, it would seem the main remit of the charges is that our accounts are false, but seeing as numbers are finite are they trying to prove that our accounts are false and there is a secondary set of accounts or that our numbers are wrong full stop, im just curious how u disprove numbers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top