KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum Hicks' Plan B!!!

2.14pm: QC Snowden speaking for RBS: "Judge made verdict in Texas on basis of no evidence and solely on what was told to him."

It is claimed that H&G tried at the Dallas injunction appeal to make sure that it could be contested in the High Court in London. But the Texas judge did not agree to that, Sachin texts from outside court 18.

2.20pm: QC Snowden speaking for RBS: Accuses H&G of preparing injunction request before yesterday's verdict here and anger that it was not disclosed during the trial by H&G legal team in the High Court.

QC Snowden speaking for RBS: Accuses H&G of preparing injunction request before yesterday's verdict here and anger that it was not disclosed during the trial by H&G legal team in the High Court.

BBC's Dan Roan tweets: "H&G's lawyers haven't turned up"

yea thats class, how the fck have they not turned up?

Hicks just wants one last word and [oops] you to prove that he is the big man, regardless of outcome!

Apparently Rick Parry is a part of putting the deal through to nesv. And not taking a fee for doing it ie wage

i hope the judge rips Hicks a new a$$h*le

Surely if they haven't even turned up it has to be over for hicks, thats disrespect to the courts??

i just wana be there or listen on the radio...

Maybe Rick Parry feels he owes it to the club?

here is some legal opinion from Quentin Bargate, Senior Partner of the City of London law firm Bargate Murray:

What struck me as most unusual was that the proceedings already taking place before the High Court in London merit only a passing reference in paragraph 53 of the petition...More surprisingly, I can find no reference in the Temporary Restraining Order made by the court in Dallas to the "British Court" decision at all. The court asserts it has jurisdiction without, it would seem, considering the possible impact of its order upon the already extant proceedings in London and whether the Dallas court should accordingly decline jurisdiction in favour of the High Court proceedings – where Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett may well have raised similar points already.

In short, it would appear that Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett's legal team decided against the option of seeking permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal, or decided that process would not yield a result in time and instead have attempted to take a second bite at the cherry in a different jurisdiction. Clearly, the Dallas court agrees that they were entitled to do so, at least for the time being.

So in essence, we have two diametrically opposing decisions of superior courts in England and the US based on essentially the same subject matter. It will be interesting to see what the High Court in London makes of all this.