Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422 
Likes: 5,656
|
Post by Mousey on Jan 18, 2022 11:55:25 GMT
Presumably it couldn’t be reported until agreed and released by the Court anyway? Well not quite. The judgment gives rise to an order which takes effect the moment it is sealed by the court. As far as I'm aware this judgment won't be 'reported' as such - ie placed on BAILII, as it was delivered extempore and doesn't concern a development in the law. To that extent the public is reliant on my ability to attend these hearings. As for reporting things said in Open Court: Article 10 of the Human Rights Act states: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers
JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd (Rev 1) [2011] EWCA Civ 42, para 4, states: …public coverage of court proceedings is a fundamental aspect of freedom of expression…
Home Office v Harman [1983] AC 280, Lord Diplock at p303 states: …Justice is to be administered in open court where anyone present may listen to and report what was said…
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 7,917
Likes: 4,466
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 18, 2022 12:46:54 GMT
The other half of Article 10 says...
Article 6 also kicks in...
(My emphasis)
This one certainly sounds more like cock-up than conspiracy, but I'm not convinced there's a strong angle in getting all EConvHR on their backsides with it. On the basis that you can catch more flies with sugar than vinegar, are the court unwilling to provide the information at all, if asked very nicely...?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 5,656
|
Post by Mousey on Jan 18, 2022 13:14:39 GMT
The other half of Article 10 says... Article 6 also kicks in... (My emphasis) This one certainly sounds more like cock-up than conspiracy, but I'm not convinced there's a strong angle in getting all EConvHR on their backsides with it. On the basis that you can catch more flies with sugar than vinegar, are the court unwilling to provide the information at all, if asked very nicely...? Article 6 is for criminal trials of which this isn't. The second half of Article 10 refers to a test of necessity and The House of Lords in Scott v Scott gives guidance on when a derogation from open justice is necessary, and on whom the burden should lie for proving it is the case. Viscount Haldane LC made clear that: "The exceptions are themselves the outcome of a yet more fundamental principle that the chief object of courts of justice must be to secure that justice is done. … As the paramount object must always be to do justice, the general rule as to publicity, after all only the means to an end, must accordingly yield. But the burden lies on those seeking to displace its application in a particular case to make out that the ordinary rule must as of necessity be superseded by this paramount consideration. … I think that to justify an order for hearing in camera it must be shown that the paramount object of securing that justice is done would really be rendered doubtful of attainment if the order were not made ".You have to refer to article 10 when dealing with Open Justice queries with the courts. Courts deal with the law and not unqualified assertions by non-parties. A pretty please doesn't cut it.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,141
Likes: 820
|
Post by averageguy on Aug 18, 2022 17:51:01 GMT
Anyone know if there is any movement on this one?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,183
Likes: 10,302
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 18, 2022 21:01:47 GMT
Anyone know if there is any movement on this one? Awaiting the court case, expected sometime between Oct & Mar, there is a disclosure hearing due in the next few months first
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 5,656
|
Post by Mousey on Aug 19, 2022 10:42:09 GMT
Anyone know if there is any movement on this one? Awaiting the court case, expected sometime between Oct & Mar, there is a disclosure hearing due in the next few months first Disclosure hearing was held on 28th March 2022 before HHJ Rawlings. Among other issues: Benjamin Wood, the lawyer representing the borrower, said " Where you have more than two parties, that an opposing party is assisted by documents you have means they must be disclosed. The purpose of course, is to achieve the fair resolution of civil proceedings ... My client [the borrower] does not seek the names, addresses and DOB of the investors, a unique identifier is fine". It is understood one of the issues concerns the purported " linking of the loans". Ie would the dev loan have been advanced independently of the land loan. Mr Wood explained " this is positively denied in [Lendy's] Defence, and it is asserted that the loans were “not connected… in any way”." Explaining that Lendy's position is that these were separate transactions involving different lenders Mr Wood asked "How do you prove they were different lenders without knowing the identifier of who lent on each loan". My notes from the hearing include " phase 1 trial won’t be before June 2023 or end of year".
|
|
qlassa
Member of DD Central
Posts: 54
Likes: 24
|
Post by qlassa on Aug 29, 2022 13:48:27 GMT
Awaiting the court case, expected sometime between Oct & Mar, there is a disclosure hearing due in the next few months first Disclosure hearing was held on 28th March 2022 before HHJ Rawlings. Among other issues: Benjamin Wood, the lawyer representing the borrower, said " Where you have more than two parties, that an opposing party is assisted by documents you have means they must be disclosed. The purpose of course, is to achieve the fair resolution of civil proceedings ... My client [the borrower] does not seek the names, addresses and DOB of the investors, a unique identifier is fine". It is understood one of the issues concerns the purported " linking of the loans". Ie would the dev loan have been advanced independently of the land loan. Mr Wood explained " this is positively denied in [Lendy's] Defence, and it is asserted that the loans were “not connected… in any way”." Explaining that Lendy's position is that these were separate transactions involving different lenders Mr Wood asked "How do you prove they were different lenders without knowing the identifier of who lent on each loan". My notes from the hearing include " phase 1 trial won’t be before June 2023 or end of year". Thanks for sharing, long way ahead..
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Sept 2, 2022 18:57:09 GMT
This is not good. On 16 March, LY's update said they were "sending the borrower a redemption statement in order to progress with the refinance of the loan facility. Once provided, we shall closely monitor the refinance where the loan is due to be repaid in full on 14 April 2018". On 29 March, LY's update said "The refinance formalities are progressing". (Note - not even that they had been told by the borrower that the refinance was progressing. It was a statement written as fact, not hearsay). But on 13 April LY said the repayment would not be happening and on 16 April, LY admit the borrower had "failed to provide documentation and/or correspondence to substantiate the intended refinance". Unfortunately, the update here on 16 April contradicts the 2 previous March updates and, on the face of it, it appears to me that the updates posted on 16 and 29 March were factually incorrect or, in modern parlance, 'fake updates'. In summary, 1. On 16 March LY said they would "closely monitor the refinance". Evidently they did not. 4 weeks later, in the 13 April update, they advised that the refinance had not progressed and on 16 April said no evidence of refinance had been produced. Contrary to the 16 March update, that does not suggest any monitoring of the situation in the previous 4 weeks - let alone "close monitoring". 2. The 29 March update informing lenders that the "refinance formalities are progressing" appears to have been untrue. A fake update. And if it was not a fake update - what evidence did LY have on 29 March that the refinance was progressing, when they advise on 16 April that the borrower had failed to provide any evidence of refinance.  Reviving old memories here, but Lendy played investors along on this one, with what this poster correctly describes as "fake updates".I we ll remember deciding not to sell out of this loan on the back of these reassurances. The real truth was very far from any £14m refinance being arranged at that time. Lendy were not monitoring anything, just stringing the lenders along with allusions to a full repayment. At the time they had several other new and ludicrously overvalued investments opening and needed to give investors the seeming certainty of a forthcoming major repayment to encourage further investment in these other er...schemes.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Sept 2, 2022 21:13:27 GMT
This is not good. On 16 March, LY's update said they were "sending the borrower a redemption statement in order to progress with the refinance of the loan facility. Once provided, we shall closely monitor the refinance where the loan is due to be repaid in full on 14 April 2018". On 29 March, LY's update said "The refinance formalities are progressing". (Note - not even that they had been told by the borrower that the refinance was progressing. It was a statement written as fact, not hearsay). But on 13 April LY said the repayment would not be happening and on 16 April, LY admit the borrower had "failed to provide documentation and/or correspondence to substantiate the intended refinance". Unfortunately, the update here on 16 April contradicts the 2 previous March updates and, on the face of it, it appears to me that the updates posted on 16 and 29 March were factually incorrect or, in modern parlance, 'fake updates'. In summary, 1. On 16 March LY said they would "closely monitor the refinance". Evidently they did not. 4 weeks later, in the 13 April update, they advised that the refinance had not progressed and on 16 April said no evidence of refinance had been produced. Contrary to the 16 March update, that does not suggest any monitoring of the situation in the previous 4 weeks - let alone "close monitoring". 2. The 29 March update informing lenders that the "refinance formalities are progressing" appears to have been untrue. A fake update. And if it was not a fake update - what evidence did LY have on 29 March that the refinance was progressing, when they advise on 16 April that the borrower had failed to provide any evidence of refinance. Reviving old memories here, but Lendy played investors along on this one, with what this poster correctly describes as "fake updates".I we ll remember deciding not to sell out of this loan on the back of these reassurances. The real truth was very far from any £14m refinance being arranged at that time. Lendy were not monitoring anything, just stringing the lenders along with allusions to a full repayment. At the time they had several other new and ludicrously overvalued investments opening and needed to give investors the seeming certainty of a forthcoming major repayment to encourage further investment in these other er...schemes. I've managed to sell 84% of my contribution in late April/early May 2017. Can't remember what the motivation was, probably some posts on the forum, but I'm glad I did it. A year later wanted to sell the rest, but was too late for the party.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjt1 on Sept 3, 2022 7:34:06 GMT
As Lendy have admitted to fraud in respect of the borrower then admitting fraud in respect of the lenders can’t be far behind, and the assumption is that this would be correct for the whole loan book.
Quite what this means in respect of recoveries remains to be seen.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,183
Likes: 10,302
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 3, 2022 11:26:06 GMT
As Lendy have admitted to fraud in respect of the borrower then admitting fraud in respect of the lenders can’t be far behind, and the assumption is that this would be correct for the whole loan book. Quite what this means in respect of recoveries remains to be seen. Sorry where have they admitted fraud?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjt1 on Sept 4, 2022 7:22:40 GMT
AIUI Lendy submitted a Summary Judgement Application that was heard at the end of last year. It was a bit of a disaster and their argument was essentially that x y or Z couldn’t be true because that was known to Lendy at the time of the loan. It all boiled down to how they funded the loans and what they told the borrower, and the judge found they were wrong.
Appreciate I’m not doing this justice (pardon the pun) but that element of the case resulted in Lendy admitting that they had fraudulently misrepresented the funding position to the borrower.
Further distilled as - Lendy told both lenders and borrowers whatever was best for Lendy.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,183
Likes: 10,302
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 4, 2022 9:37:15 GMT
AIUI Lendy submitted a Summary Judgement Application that was heard at the end of last year. It was a bit of a disaster and their argument was essentially that x y or Z couldn’t be true because that was known to Lendy at the time of the loan. It all boiled down to how they funded the loans and what they told the borrower, and the judge found they were wrong. Appreciate I’m not doing this justice (pardon the pun) but that element of the case resulted in Lendy admitting that they had fraudulently misrepresented the funding position to the borrower. Further distilled as - Lendy told both lenders and borrowers whatever was best for Lendy. Not AFAICS ... they dont appear to have admitted anything at all. Theyve have merely presented an argument on how the contracts should be interpreted. I would assume, as I havent seen the judgement, that the judge didnt agree that their case was strong enough for the issues to be summarily dismissed and that there is a case to be heard ... not the same as the finding they were wrong. The irony is had the borrower got the build done on time then funding is unlikely to have been an issue as Lendy had little trouble funding loans/tranches during the original term of the loan. Im sure Mousey will be better informed & correct me if Im wrong. PS misrepresentations regarding lenders is a certainty (hence the FCA redress scheme) but nothing has been admitted yet.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,276
Likes: 4,241
|
Post by duck on Sept 4, 2022 12:37:09 GMT
..... PS misrepresentations regarding lenders is a certainty ( hence the FCA redress scheme) but nothing has been admitted yet.   I really hope you are not referring to the FCA 'compensation' scheme ........
|
|
|
|
Post by pjt1 on Sept 4, 2022 17:16:29 GMT
Ilmoro, i see this from the reverse angle - as far as I am aware the Judgement agreed with the borrower on the points that Lendy raised when they made their application such as the actual reading and understanding of the contract.
These matters have been decided now and no longer form part of the case to come.
It was a catastrophic backfire.
|
|
