Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Paul Elliott (The other one) has taken the club to court
Comments
-
isn't that a conflict of interest between Farnell and Paul Eliotttt. plus i know on another Companies house. Bassini and Farnell are part of another company.1
-
Surprised the stupid little fucker had the £11 it cost to file the case.....4
-
27
-
Oh arse, now I've got "I wish I could fly" going round in my head.2
-
Wasn't that Orville not Chuckles?
0 -
Yes, but with Keith Harris, whose similarity to Paul El(l)iot(t) was the reason for the picture in the first place.0
-
All this to get the £11 back he paid for us back then!
3 -
Unless something has changed in the last 24 hours, Charlton Athletic Football Club is not a legal entity. Document doesn't look anything like anything I've seen before, smacks of desperation or a balls up. Or both...1
-
Sorry to disappoint but the £11 is what you have to pay to download the document in question from that website.2
-
Sponsored links:
-
£1 for the club and now £11 for the download. These guys are serious.10
-
I laugh every time I see itAFKABartram said:1 -
Fair enough, Paul does look very very like a young Keith Harris.aliwibble said:Yes, but with Keith Harris, whose similarity to Paul El(l)iot(t) was the reason for the picture in the first place.0 -
I once filed a routine claim against “Companies House” to get a company-reinstatement and papers could not be issued until the Defendant was changed to “The Registrar Companies House” since Companies House is not a legal entity.Rock Spectacle said:Unless something has changed in the last 24 hours, Charlton Athletic Football Club is not a legal entity. Document doesn't look anything like anything I've seen before, smacks of desperation or a balls up. Or both...
So not sure how papers have been effectively served on CAFC.2 -
All of a piece with these people though. How on earth did they leave the legal space for Sandgaard to buy the club from ESI?Dippenhall said:
I once filed a routine claim against “Companies House” to get a company-reinstatement and papers could not be issued until the Defendant was changed to “The Registrar Companies House” since Companies House is not a legal entity.Rock Spectacle said:Unless something has changed in the last 24 hours, Charlton Athletic Football Club is not a legal entity. Document doesn't look anything like anything I've seen before, smacks of desperation or a balls up. Or both...
So not sure how papers have been effectively served on CAFC.3 -
will we ever be free from these chancers !!!Farnell seems to have a business based on representing idiots0
-
Even idiots are entitled to competent legal representation though. It’s not clear they have it.AndyG said:will we ever be free from these chancers !!!Farnell seems to have a business based on representing idiots7 -
Well in the same way that their "respected" sports lawyer left the physical space for Darren New and his mates to pop round, bearing flowers, for a cup of tea with him and Dave Jones at his office.Airman Brown said:
All of a piece with these people though. How on earth did they leave the legal space for Sandgaard to buy the club from ESI?Dippenhall said:
I once filed a routine claim against “Companies House” to get a company-reinstatement and papers could not be issued until the Defendant was changed to “The Registrar Companies House” since Companies House is not a legal entity.Rock Spectacle said:Unless something has changed in the last 24 hours, Charlton Athletic Football Club is not a legal entity. Document doesn't look anything like anything I've seen before, smacks of desperation or a balls up. Or both...
So not sure how papers have been effectively served on CAFC.
Probably my favourite moment of that whole tawdry saga.
6 -
Are you suggesting Farnell is competent?Airman Brown said:
Even idiots are entitled to competent legal representation though. It’s not clear they have it.AndyG said:will we ever be free from these chancers !!!Farnell seems to have a business based on representing idiotsI feel he is parasite who leeches onto situations where he can try to exploit situations for his own gain competency has nothing to do with it. His methods seem to be make enough of a nuisance and hope someone settles rather than deal with the agro0 -
Farnell has conveniently only ticked the box that says “The Claimant (Elliott) believes that the facts stated in these particulars of claim are true” and not the one which says “I believe that the facts stated…”.Trying to cover himself being charged with contempt of court for anyone who makes a false statement.1
-
Sponsored links:
-
AB’s 2nd sentence answers your own.AndyG said:
Are you suggesting Farnell is competent?Airman Brown said:
Even idiots are entitled to competent legal representation though. It’s not clear they have it.AndyG said:will we ever be free from these chancers !!!Farnell seems to have a business based on representing idiotsI feel he is parasite who leeches onto situations where he can try to exploit situations for his own gain competency has nothing to do with it. His methods seem to be make enough of a nuisance and hope someone settles rather than deal with the agro5 -
The SRA believe so.AndyG said:
Are you suggesting Farnell is competent?Airman Brown said:
Even idiots are entitled to competent legal representation though. It’s not clear they have it.AndyG said:will we ever be free from these chancers !!!Farnell seems to have a business based on representing idiots1 -
9
-
So what’s happened.0
-
I'll pay the £12 if it means he disappears forever.0
-
I'm not sure if anything has. The case tracker website is updated daily but doesn't show a hearing date from what I can see. The hearing (presuming it will last less than two days) has to be logged by the end of this month for the trial to then happen between June and October. (If a longer trial is expected, it won't be heard until 2026!)Hartleypete said:So what’s happened.0 -
How is this fucking ferret still knocking about?
Him and Farnell need to take a long walk off a short pier. Chancers!6 -
This happened on the case today -
Order by Master Order - Order dated 25/3/25 sealed and sent to serving party by email
Don't know what it means, but will try to find out...
1 -
In relation to a court case, "Order by Master Order" typically means that a Master of the court (a judicial officer, often below the level of a judge) has issued an order that governs the case. This could be an administrative or procedural ruling rather than a substantive judgment.
Possible Meanings:
-
Procedural Direction – The Master has issued an order outlining how the case should proceed, such as deadlines, discovery procedures, or case management.
-
Case Management Decision – The Master has decided on preliminary matters before the case goes before a judge.
-
Final Order on Specific Issues – In some jurisdictions, Masters have authority to make binding decisions on certain matters, such as default judgments, cost awards, or minor disputes.
4 -
-
The man is a clueless gimp.0
