Oakwell Holdings Limited v BFC Investment Company Limited

Discussion in 'Bulletin Board' started by Spirit of 81, Aug 18, 2020.

  1. Spi

    Spirit of 81 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    217
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    in both actions the claimant is Oakwell Holdings Limited and the defendant is BFC Investment Company Limited
     
  2. man

    mansfield_red Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,366
    Likes Received:
    8,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    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.
     
    Redhelen likes this.
  3. She

    Sheriff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,670
    Likes Received:
    1,671
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    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.
     
    Redhelen likes this.
  4. orsenkaht

    orsenkaht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Messages:
    8,892
    Likes Received:
    6,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Although it would seem that the case must have been listed for a hearing: Rule 5.4C (3)(c).
     
    Redhelen likes this.
  5. man

    mansfield_red Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,366
    Likes Received:
    8,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    The claim will almost certainly have been listed for a hearing (even if only a Case Management Conference) at this point
     
    Redhelen likes this.
  6. Dep

    Deputy Dawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2017
    Messages:
    368
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    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.
     
    judith charmers likes this.

Share This Page