Search results

Cheers. At least these people - Monckton Chambers’ Paul Harris KC, Blackstone Chambers’ Lord Pannick KC, and Serle Court’s Philip Marshall KC and James Mather. Likely City don't need the number of Juniors because of the balance of witness evidence ie many more City witnesses than PL witnesses...

Cheers. Think so.

Yes, generally happy. Not possible to deal with all his points in such a forum, on his show, with a host and a break coming up. I am only able to choose which points to deal with and how. Do you debate by simply talking over someone?

Can you chase the cash please. Still not arrived.

[eye roll emoji]

Not earning a living from Talksport I can promise you that!

We've been over it before. The best way to deal with the idea it is all a stitch is to show how ludicrous that suggestion looks in the face of a 12 week hearing, a 200 page + decision, a 5 year process, EIGHT PL barristers etc. But again, a) I don't have infinite time b) it is not my show c) I...

These decisions are fine balances. Barristers look at probabilities and litigation risk. Sometimes in the final days before a hearing, they obsess about the weaknesses/weak spots of the case/arguments and prefer a client to settle - even more so when their financial risk is insulated by a nice...

FWIW, APT not realistically appealable

Yes - I'd have taken that subject to the wording of the release. Because....litigation risk But without having good visibility on the evidence, it is a meaningless statement.

Settlement offer is possible but I don't believe it would have been six points.

The PL approved it so this is done. But it is very hard to see how United had exceptional broadcast losses (Spurs said they were sub £1m), the sponsorship cancellation was never disclosed in their accounts so presumably was also immaterial, Arsenal also cancelled the Summer tour and quoted total...

It is a meaningless article based on fundamental misunderstandings. It would be a bizarre way for the PL to approach a fudge to a) charge City in the first place b) go all the way to a 10-12 week "trial" c) line up a squad of at least EIGHT barristers d) spend maybe £30m on the prosecution and...

Foul smell of racism in this nonsense. The religion of Levy, Bernstein and Bernstein is 100% irrelevant to this complete nonsense conspiracy theory.

We agree re Masters. But on disclosure, it is simply not how it works. Ultimately, it is safe to assume that the IC would have dealt with any disputes over disclosure at case management hearings over the last few years so by the time we get to the hearing there is nothing to infer. But there are...

Most cases don't have the political issue the PL has here - optically difficult for them to settle without City accepting wrongdoing which City are naturally reluctant to do. The parties really should have found a way to settle before the charges but likely too late now.

An enquiry/select committee is not the same as this. Cross examination is very careful and planned rather than open ended and looking at seeing what the witness may come out with.

I don't think it is relevant and isn't really how cross examination works - really cross examination is an exercise to discredit the witness or extract the answer you want from the witness. In any event, I'd think he will just say he received privileged advice on the subject and can't discuss it.

I don't think this will be City's defence. It isn't a good defence anyway IMO

Yes - say, if any of City's CAS witnesses refused to give evidence, I would think that this could/would create an adverse inference.