RIFC v Sports Direct: No contempt of court - injuction to be discussed in January

[buster. 4,808]

isn't it contempt of court to waste a judges time.

 

On the face of it, you'd have thought there is 'room' for a counter attack with costs in mind.

 

However, I don't know how these things work.

[BlueMazza 0]

Iain ‏@CemetryGates89 2m2 minutes ago

Today's court defence cost Rangers more than the total income of the deal it sought to protect. Ridiculous.

Sobering thought...

[stewarty 1,876]

Wow. Staggering to see laid bare exactly the frivolous, vexatious and totally without merit lengths Ashley goes to....

[buster. 4,808]

Sobering thought...

 

Brings home the real injustices nearer to the root of all this.

 

 

#LaughingLastWouldBGood

[buster. 4,808]

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant

Court will probably sit again at half 2 to briefly sort out future matter of injunction.

[buster. 4,808]

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman

Judge was particularly scathing that counsel for Sports Direct brought no evidence to court proving King made the statements reported

 

Now was that down to a heavy and numerous legal team making mistakes or that there wasn't any evidence of sufficent weight to make a contempt charge stick.

 

Could you reasonably expect that heavy and numerous legal team to realise the flaw in their bid to jail DK ?

 

And if so, why did they continue with action ?

 

And if the client insisted in such an action, is it not more than reasonable to ask SD to pay all costs and perhaps even ask for damages ?

[Little General 80]

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman

Judge was particularly scathing that counsel for Sports Direct brought no evidence to court proving King made the statements reported

 

Now was that down to a heavy and numerous legal team making mistakes or that there wasn't any evidence of sufficent weight to make a contempt charge stick.

 

Could you reasonably expect that heavy and numerous legal team to realise the flaw in their bid to jail DK ?

 

And if so, why did they continue with action ?

 

And if the client insisted in such an action, is it not more than reasonable to ask SD to pay all costs and perhaps even ask for damages ?

 

maybe they will ask for costs after tomorrow's hearing?

[MacK1950 2,231]

Have seen that Judge commented upon the fact that SD are selling beanies with logo F*ck King likely to be aimed at DK.

No doubt if he is to pay costs will make it from these sales as our scum rivals will flock to buy them.

[buster. 4,808]

maybe they will ask for costs after tomorrow's hearing?

 

Don't know how it works bud, although the judge made no mention of it (as per tweeters) when asking for and later mentioning quantums re.costs.

 

#patience.... or someone on twitter could ask Grant Russell on this specifically or even as they say in Greenock, pacifically.

Edited December 10, 2015 by buster.

[Bearman 9]

Have seen that Judge commented upon the fact that SD are selling beanies with logo F*ck King likely to be aimed at DK.

No doubt if he is to pay costs will make it from these sales as our scum rivals will flock to buy them.

 

No they won't.