coop
Member of DD Central
Posts: 714
Likes: 571
|
Post by coop on Feb 13, 2020 9:58:07 GMT
"due to the current pressures on the Court system"
Thanks Tories!!!
|
|
|
Post by spareapennyor2 on Mar 11, 2020 11:07:50 GMT
update on site not what we want /have to wait til September/October now
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 713
Likes: 575
|
Post by keystone on Mar 12, 2020 9:51:21 GMT
I just hope MoneyThing will be claiming for the costs of all this delay so that investors don't end up with a reduced amount from what is being held by the liquidator.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,573
Likes: 6,588
|
Post by Mousey on Nov 10, 2020 20:20:30 GMT
Court of Appeal Civil Division
Wednesday, 11th November, 2020 At half-past 10 APPEAL From The Queen's Bench Division FINAL DECISIONS *BORROWING COMPANY -v- Moneything Capital Limited and anr.
Appeal of Claimant from the order of Anthony Metzer QC, dated 16th December 2019, filed 6th January 2020.
This appeal will be live streamed live via the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website. *Link in DDC
ETA - the details of the case: The Claimant appeals against the order dated 16/12/19 by Anthony Metzer QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) staying the claim on the terms of a consent order.
The case raises an issue about the effect of the label “subject to contract” when used in correspondence between solicitors in the context of a settlement negotiation, and the extent to which that label may be disregarded by the court in holding that a binding compromise has been reached.
The judge held that the parties reached a concluded agreement on 11/7/19 and therefore the C’s application succeeded.
The C submits that the deputy judge was wrong to hold that a legally enforceable settlement agreement had been concluded in circumstances where the communication of both the offer and its acceptance were headed “subject to contract”. The C argues that the judgment undermines a long-established principle of the common law.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Nov 10, 2020 20:44:37 GMT
Court of Appeal Civil Division
Wednesday, 11th November, 2020 At half-past 10 APPEAL From The Queen's Bench Division FINAL DECISIONS *BORROWING COMPANY -v- Moneything Capital Limited and anr.
Appeal of Claimant from the order of Anthony Metzer QC, dated 16th December 2019, filed 6th January 2020.
This appeal will be live streamed live via the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website. *Link in DDC
ETA - the details of the case: The Claimant appeals against the order dated 16/12/19 by Anthony Metzer QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) staying the claim on the terms of a consent order.
The case raises an issue about the effect of the label “subject to contract” when used in correspondence between solicitors in the context of a settlement negotiation, and the extent to which that label may be disregarded by the court in holding that a binding compromise has been reached.
The judge held that the parties reached a concluded agreement on 11/7/19 and therefore the C’s application succeeded.
The C submits that the deputy judge was wrong to hold that a legally enforceable settlement agreement had been concluded in circumstances where the communication of both the offer and its acceptance were headed “subject to contract”. The C argues that the judgment undermines a long-established principle of the common law.
Many thanks for posting this....ones hopes we get a satisfactory decision on this soon!
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,573
Likes: 6,588
|
Post by Mousey on Nov 10, 2020 21:37:49 GMT
Many thanks for posting this....ones hopes we get a satisfactory decision on this soon! Thanks, I suspect it'll take about a week for the judgement to be published but I'll keep an eye open
|
|
|
Post by spareapennyor2 on Nov 11, 2020 12:47:22 GMT
I've got a headache
none the wiser? if lawyer's don`t understand than gad help us
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,573
Likes: 6,588
|
Post by Mousey on Nov 14, 2020 0:18:58 GMT
NOTICE Take notice that on THURSDAY, 19 NOVEMBER, 2020 at 10:30, Judgment will be given in the following. APPEAL From The Queen's Bench Division FINAL DECISIONS A2/****/**** *Borrower -v- Moneything Capital Limited and anr. Appeal of Claimant from the order of Anthony Metzer QC, dated 16th December 2019, filed 6th January 2020.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,573
Likes: 6,588
|
Post by Mousey on Nov 19, 2020 12:51:03 GMT
Judgement has been published.
The appeal was successful
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,461
Likes: 1,173
|
Post by travolta on Nov 19, 2020 13:14:56 GMT
I've lost the plot Mousey. Could you please explain if this is to our advantage,yet? and hazard a guess at possible outcome . (A lot of us are thick,which is possibly why we are here in the first place ,me included.) Thank you for all the effort so far .
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,573
Likes: 6,588
|
Post by Mousey on Nov 19, 2020 13:27:28 GMT
I've lost the plot Mousey. Could you please explain if this is to our advantage,yet? and hazard a guess at possible outcome . (A lot of us are thick,which is possibly why we are here in the first place ,me included.) Thank you for all the effort so far . Well in a nutshell Moneything lost the appeal.
This appeal concerned an amount of £140k which represented sums that were ring-fenced after the borrower had "challenged that appointment [of the LPA receivers] on the ground that both the loan agreement and the charge had been procured by undue influence."
The Court of Appeal found that "the judge seriously undervalued the force of the "subject to contract" label on the legal effect of the negotiations."
Therefore the parties had not reached a "binding agreement about how the sum of £140,000 was to be shared between them".
What happens next is a matter for the parties.
|
|
cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Nov 19, 2020 13:40:09 GMT
Either MT screwed up, or their choice of solicitor did, either way we all know who will end up paying for the mistake, and I doubt it will be either of the parties mentioned.
If anyone suggests a claim against the solicitor, who would pay for this? Morally I know who I feel ought to, but equally I have little faith in MT's moral sense of responsibility. To be fair any commercial concern would be as equally slippery, for me the difference is other commercial concerns were not all chummy chummy during the good times.
|
|
ptr120
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 1,346
|
Post by ptr120 on Nov 19, 2020 13:52:58 GMT
I've read the judgement as best I can and it seems like the difference between the parties was at best a few thousand pounds. To have taken a legal case so far over such a sum seems to have been folly as the costs MT will have to pay (their own, plus those awarded to the other party) are likely to be significantly more than the difference between the parties. I'd go as far as to say that they may take up the lions share of the entire ring-fenced sum at issue.
The chance of any further funds being returned to borrowers just got reduced significantly and pushed back significantly.
|
|
|
Post by spareapennyor2 on Nov 19, 2020 14:02:56 GMT
Update now on site
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 623
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Nov 20, 2020 10:23:35 GMT
According to the 2 April 2019 update, "As part of the agreement that we reached, the Receiver is holding the full net-proceeds in a ringfenced account pending resolution of the borrower’s legal claim". Is it safe to assume that this is still the case and the Receiver still holds the rest of the funds after the MT distribution? If so, there are sufficient funds to be wasted in this stupid legal fight for the next few years. If in the end MT is proved right and the Borrower's claim is dismissed, there shoud be enough cash to cover the legal costs including a couple more rounds of court nonesense.
|
|