*I just found this* LANGSTON VS CCFC

http://clients.squareeye.net/uploads/oec/CCFCjmnt.pdf


1. This is an application for summary judgment under CPR Part 24 by Langston Group
Corp (“Langston”) as the holder of a nominal £24 million fixed rate unsecured
redeemable loan notes issued by the defendant Cardiff City Football Club Limited
(“the Club”) pursuant to the terms of an Instrument dated 20th September 2004 (“the
Instrument”).


65. There is no evidence on the assumed facts that this approach to conditionality was
ever renegotiated, and no reason in the absence of any further evidence why it should
not be inferred that such remained Langston’s intention until the execution of the
2006 Agreement in the form drafted thereafter by the Club’s solicitors. The evidence
of the draftsman, of course yet to be tested, is that it was no part of his brief to
exclude waiver of condition as a legitimate means of achieving unconditionality of the
CDA, and that he did not by omitting the word ‘waiver’ in the Variation intend any
such consequence. It follows that in my judgment, there is on the assumed facts a
sufficient basis for the conclusion that the Club has, if necessary, a real prospect of
obtaining the remedy of rectification which it seeks.

CONCLUSION

66. For the reasons given, this is plainly not a case for summary judgment. Langston’s
application is therefore dismissed.




Im definitely the in the know guy. Old but found this document. Any legal experts here decipher it?

From what I can see, Langston already dismissed so that should give us good ground to see them in court again.

Blimey - that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Although I think this refers to the court case in which 'Langston' attempted to force the club to pay up the date immediately - I think Ridler said that it wasn't legal and he wasn't confident that their case would be dismissed - which of course is was.

It cost the club a bit of money in legal fees if I remember. Yes thanks Sam I "never want to damage the club' my arse.

I've worked out one thing from this, that I will share with you.

Lawyers definetely do not speak English.

It does refer to that case in particular but the last statement in the conclusion is of vital importance. By rejecting the case of summary judgement he is effectively saying no solid facts could be found to show we owed the money. If solid facts were found then they probably would have granted Langston the summary judgement but the fact finder never found anything therefore it had to be dismissed. Obviously, in court in 2016, Langston would get to put forward evidence but if the fact finder can't find anything it does make you wonder how legit all this is. Surely they'd have presented the fact finder with as much evidence they had in order to try and force a payment?