Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Court No. 12

1234568»

Comments

  • Charlton chief executive Peter Varney said: "We've only just received the verdict and need to study a very comprehensive judgement in detail with our lawyers'.


    Strange, as Jordan said on SSN he knew the result 3 days ago....
  • [cite]Posted By: AFKA Bartram[/cite] Strange, as Jordan said on SSN he knew the result 3 days ago....


    Just like that orange idiot to come out with a quip like that anyway.

    To be honest- i rather hope that the club are conentrating on more important matters.
  • [cite]Posted By: StanmoreAddick[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: AFKA Bartram[/cite]Strange, as Jordan said on SSN he knew the result 3 days ago....


    Just like that orange idiot to come out with a quip like that anyway.

    To be honest- i rather hope that the club are conentrating on more important matters.

    Probably as we're not parties in the action
  • Aren't we studying the verdict to see if we still may have grounds to sue Jordan for defamation?
  • [cite]Posted By: AFKA Bartram[/cite]Charlton chief executive Peter Varney said: "We've only just received the verdict and need to study a very comprehensive judgement in detail with our lawyers'.


    Strange, as Jordan said on SSN he knew the result 3 days ago....

    Knowing the result and knowing the wording of the Judgment are two very different things.
  • edited June 2007
    The verdict ............

    The Verdict
  • edited June 2007
    Intersting summary by Blackheath Addict

    http://blackheathaddicted.blogspot.com/2007/06/jordan-loses-court-case.html
  • No damages

    Dowie to pay all costs (rumoured to be between £700k - £800k)
  • rematch.
  • Jordan gets out of this with a slight moral victory, but probably a little out of pocket and coming across as odious

    Dowie comes out of this severely out of pocket, possibly considering a bankruptcy filing, and exposed as pretty underhand.

    We come out of it with a couple of question marks against us, but sitting quietly in the hope that the orange fool doesn't try to drag this up again
  • Sponsored links:


  • Press Association copy:
    Former Crystal Palace manager Iain Dowie was landed with a massive legal costs
    bill today in the aftermath of his disastrous courtroom defeat at the hands of
    chairman Simon Jordan.
    A High Court judge, who ruled last week that the manager had deceived Jordan
    into waiving a #1 million compensation clause in his employment contract only
    days before he joined arch-rivals Charlton, ordered Dowie to pay Palace's legal
    bill, estimated at up to #400,000.
    The costs order was made on an "indemnity" basis - the highest scale of court
    costs - which means that the Palace lawyers' bill will not be reduced to any
    great extent when it is formally scrutinised.
    Mr Justice Tugendhat directed Dowie to pay #150,000 "on account" within 42
    days.
    In addition, Dowie is facing the prospect of having to pay a similar amount to
    his own legal team.
    And the question of how much compensation he will have to pay Palace for his
    "deceit" has yet to be decided.
    His counsel, Michael McParland, said he would challenge the judgment and costs
    order made against him, the effect of which was "cataclysmic" for himself, his
    family and his career as a manager - he is currently in charge at Coventry.
    The judge refused Dowie permission to appeal. It was for the Court of Appeal to
    decide whether he should have leave to challenge the rulings, he said.
    Jordan had accused Dowie of telling lies when he negotiated his way out of his
    contract with Palace and joined Charlton a year ago.
    The judge ruled last week that Palace entered into a compromise agreement,
    freeing Dowie from his contract, on the basis of "fraudulent representations"
    by the manager to the effect that he had not been contacted by Charlton and had
    no present intention of joining them.
    Dowie, 42, had a clause in his contract to the effect that, if he left to join
    another club, Palace would receive #1 million compensation.
    Although Palace cannot now resurrect the contract, it is still pursuing Dowie -
    at a further hearing which will not take place before November - for #1 million
    on the basis that it lost the chance of recovering compensation from Charlton.
    During robust exchanges between lawyers at today's costs hearing, Mr McParland
    described Jordan's continuing attempt to claim #1 million as "a sham".
    On the issue of whether Dowie should be ordered to pay "indemnity" costs,
    John Davies QC, for Palace, said Dowie's defence had been conducted with
    "aggression, unhelpfulness and downright deceit".
    Mr McParland responded that the aggression came from the other side. Dowie had
    been subjected to "repeated vulgar abuse" through the media.
    "Mr Jordan, a multi-millionaire with a strong personality, wanted to have his
    view established. 'I'll get him' was what this case was all about," he said.
    The judge said the case had been conducted "robustly" on both sides, but it
    was correct to categorise the cross-examination of Mr Jordan in the witness box
    as "aggressive". An indemnity costs order was justified.
    He called on both sides to conduct further hearings in a "non-confrontational
    manner".
  • Sounds like Jordan is trying to destroy Dowie - he is an incredibly vindictive person
  • [cite]Posted By: stonemuse[/cite]Sounds like Jordan is trying to destroy Dowie - he is an incredibly vindictive person

    yes it looks that way .................... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/11/09/sfnpal109.xml
  • what a tosser
  • wouldn't it be easier if Dowie declared himself bankrupt?
  • [cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]wouldn't it be easier if Dowie declared himself bankrupt?
    wouldnt that be lying?
  • Well as much as I hate Jordan, he won fair and square. Dowie should pay up and if he hasn't then Jordan is right to take it further.Or am I missing the point?
  • [cite]Posted By: Covered End[/cite]Well as much as I hate Jordan, he won fair and square. Dowie should pay up and if he hasn't then Jordan is right to take it further.Or am I missing the point?

    Yep. Can't see how he could wriggle out of that one. I don't give much for his chances of winning either this second case or the appeal - his reputation has hardly been enhanced by the original case.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!