Green loses bid to have legal costs paid by club - appeal set for 29th January

[buster. 4,808]

Appeal date has been set for 29th January.

 

Apparently Green has also been served with a further indictment by the Crown Office.

 

Not surprising but good to hear that the investigation continues and that the case appears to be building.

 

All signs point to the Crown being very determined to get a comprehensive 'result' in a very complex and multi-layered case(s).

[pete 2,499]

Lets not forget for legal sake, he is innocent until proven guilty,no matter how much we dislike him.

[BEARGER 1,829]

Lawyers acting for former Rangers boss Charles Green are appealing a legal decision which allows the club to not pay the businessman's legal bills, reports James Mulholland.

 

The businessman's legal team believe judge Lord Doherty acted incorrectly when he ruled last month that Rangers aren't legally obliged to pay his costs. The 62-year-old entrepreneur is due to stand trial at the high court in the new year.

 

 

Prosecutors claim he participated in a major fraud with Rangers owner Craig Whyte during his time as chief executive of the club. Mr Green's lawyers claim that a clause within his leaving agreement means that Rangers are obliged to pay his legal costs.

 

 

However, Lord Doherty ruled that the clause within the agreement didn't cover the costs of any alleged criminal behaviour.

 

On Wednesday, lawyers acting for Mr Green attended the Court of Session in Edinburgh to begin the appeal process. They now want civil appeal judges to rule in favour of their client.

 

In a legal document issued earlier this year, prosecutors outlined the charges against Mr Green.

 

They claim that Mr Green conspired with Craig Whyte, 44, and others when Rangers were in administration. It is alleged that the conspiracy was to take "de facto control and ownership of the business and assets of the club."

 

 

Crown lawyers also claim that they conspired to acquire Rangers for a "sum considerably below the market value." It is alleged that the offences involving Mr Green took place between February 2012 and December 2013 at various locations in Scotland and Europe. Mr Green, whose address was given in the legal document as care of a solicitor's firm in Glasgow, is expected to stand trial in the High Court next year. He has not entered a plea to the allegations.

 

On Wednesday, judge Lady Clark of Calton fixed a procedural hearing in the appeal case for January 15 2016. However, lawyers for Rangers and Green are not obliged to attend the hearing. They can cancel the hearing if they contact the court beforehand. The actual appeal hearing will take place at the Court of Session on January 29 2016.O

[Bluedell 5,342]

On Wednesday, judge Lady Clark of Calton fixed a procedural hearing in the appeal case for January 15 2016. However, lawyers for Rangers and Green are not obliged to attend the hearing. They can cancel the hearing if they contact the court beforehand. The actual appeal hearing will take place at the Court of Session on January 29 2016.O

 

Not the worst judge to hear this, but also there are a few others that I'd prefer to be dealing with this.

[Scott7 5,179]

She won't hear the appeal on her own. There will be two others. Carloway and Drummond Young are possibles as is the third chap in the Tax Appeal whose name I've forgotten.

[Bluedell 5,342]

She won't hear the appeal on her own. There will be two others. Carloway and Drummond Young are possibles as is the third chap in the Tax Appeal whose name I've forgotten.

 

I think that they are in a different division so it may not be them.

[Scott7 5,179]

Aye, but they shoogle them about when they're busy.

[forlanssister 3,050]

I wonder if inserting such a clause in his contract is in itself a breech of Sections 40/41 of the Companies Act.

[boabie 230]

I wonder if inserting such a clause in his contract is in itself a breech of Sections 40/41 of the Companies Act.

 

That clause will most certainly be referred to during the criminal trial. The companies act will be the least of his worries I would guess.

[Bluedell 5,342]

I wonder if inserting such a clause in his contract is in itself a breech of Sections 40/41 of the Companies Act.

 

Don't think section 41 is relevant. I'm not convinced about section 40 but difficult to say without knowing more about it.