BrightCiderLife

I've had a bit of a read over the judgment and it all turns on whether had to appeal the planning permission to get one inline with that both sides agreed in the agreement. The way the contract worked was that if after a year from the date at which the last of all the planning permissions (at UWE and for the new store) those permissions were not adequate (the contract specified the terms both sides needed to make it viable) the contract could be terminated. The hearing hinged on whether Sainsbury's had the right to terminate as both sides agreed that what they did to terminate was valid, Rovers just said S weren't right to do so. The reason Rovers said that was because Sainsbury's didn't appeal the planning permission to change it and instead let the clock run so that the year would elapse and the contract terminate. The contract specified in what circumstances Sainsbury's were obliged to appeal, the most important of which was that if Planning Counsel (an expert lawyer in such matters) said it had a 60% or better of succeeding they had to appeal. In his opinion the chances of success were only 55%. Therefore, Sainsbury's were not obliged to appeal and were within their rights not to. As the contract made this clear, failing to appeal does not amount to bad faith at law (what we each may think of it is for us to decide) and Sainsbury's had the right to terminate which they did. They acted in accordance with the rights they agreed with Rovers. Costs and leave for appeal were both adjourned so there is still more to come but nothing quite as significant as this. After Tesco took the Tote End and Sainsbury's took the UWE I don't know which I prefer! I feel a new song should we ever play again after all their talk of boycotting various supermarkets: "We're Bristol City, we shop where we want!"

Here is the slightly bizarre final paragraph. Mrs Justice Proudman seems to be anticipating an appeal thee so could be more to come. *Photo won't upload so here is the wording: "Accordingly I find that Sainsbury's must succeed because of the construction of Schedule 1 to the Agreement [2.11] which seems to me to be an insuperable barrier to the Club. If this is wrong (and I do not think it is), I find that the Club must succeed.

No sign of the bigwigs here at all. Sainsbury's were in breach but still had the right to terminate and used it. I will analyse it more then come back to you with the full reasons.

Sainsbury's win!

[Mods please don't merge, not until it is all finished at least] I have arrived at Courtroom 16 of the High Court and there was a handful of deluded Gasheads here as well (and even more locked outside!) so the atmosphere is building. I will try and keep everyone updated as best I can as it goes on and then make what sense I can of the judgment when I get it.

To show they're the best Non-League team in the West..?

With a game in hand!