Oakwell Holdings Limited v BFC Investment Company Limited

in both actions the claimant is Oakwell Holdings Limited and the defendant is BFC Investment Company Limited

 

You are entitled to request copies of the statements of case (i.e. any Particulars of Claim, Defence, Reply, Counterclaim) and any judgments/court orders pursuant to Rule 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules. If you request them in writing the Court should provide them.

 

Thanks for the original post, and the subsequent update. Understanding the nature of both these cases further is probably the best additional insight we could get as to the behind the scenes issues that is potentially within the public domain, albeit not easy to access. I suspect it is easier for a member of the legal profession to obtain this than for an ordinary member of the public, but perhaps someone with more knowledge of this than me could confirm this.

 

Although it would seem that the case must have been listed for a hearing: Rule 5.4C (3)(c).

 

The claim will almost certainly have been listed for a hearing (even if only a Case Management Conference) at this point

 

A educated guess would be ?
Case one is the 750,000 payment
Case two is probably the separate 5 step payment plan for the club @ 5 million
based on the accounts being a year behind this must be around the 4 million mark in non payment evasion

incidentally can people stop linking the non payment and the ground dispute
it has absolutely nothing to do with it.
it is making out the consortium is not paying because of the ground dispute which the consortium has created out of there own doing to help cloud events.

The court dispute is about payment methods for those debts
The 80 % believe it is fine and legal to pay the debts through accounting workarounds using the clubs running funds to pay for those debts.
The Cryne's believe what they are doing is illegal and payments cannot be paid for the debts using the clubs money
And the payments must be made using non club funds.