pete 2,499 Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) AT a hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh today Lord Tyre ordered that full proceedings into the matter will take place on November 12. A JUDGE has set a date for the case which will determine whether Rangers should pay bill the legal bills of former Ibrox chief executive Charles Green. Lawyers acting for the businessman went to the Court of Session in Edinburgh today in a bid to force the club to pay Mr Green's expenses. The case had been due to be heard on Friday but was moved forward as Lord Tyre was free to hear the case. Green, who led a takeover that purchased the Ibrox side's assets in 2012, is one of six men who are set to face high court proceedings in the near future in connection to their activities involving Rangers. He is expected to stand trial alongside fellow businessmen Craig Whyte, Gary Withey, David Grier, David Whitehouse, Paul Clark and Imran Ahmad. Green wants the club to pay the costs of his defence. Judge Lord Tyre today set a date for proceedings into the matter to take place at the civil court in Edinburgh on November 12. He added: "I am persuaded of the need for a debate." Green, who lives at an undisclosed address in France, had approached the club prior to his arrest on criminal charges. He requested the Ibrox side pay his legal costs in respect to the Police Scotland investigation. The former director claims that the club had agreed to pay any legal fees connected to his time at Rangers as part of his severance deal. But Rangers refused. The club's present chief executive Dave King told journalists that Green would have to pay his own lawyers. In a statement released to the press last month, King said: "Charles Green approached the club prior to his arrest and demanded that we pay his legal costs in respect of his co-operation with Police Scotland into his time as an officer of the club. "I advised him that we would not do so. He was subsequently arrested and has now approached the court to compel the club to pay the legal costs of his defence to the criminal charges. "This application will be strongly resisted." This prompted Mr Green's legal team to launch an action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh. Green, who made no plea or declaration when he initially appeared in court in relation to the criminal charges, was not present at the Court of Session today. He is expected to appear at the High Court in Edinburgh on Friday when a preliminary hearing into the criminal case is scheduled to call. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/charles-green-latest-judge-sets-6625735 Edited October 13, 2015 by pete 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 AT a hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh today Lord Tyre ordered that full proceedings into the matter will take place on November 12. A JUDGE has set a date for the case which will determine whether Rangers should pay bill the legal bills of former Ibrox chief executive Charles Green. Lawyers acting for the businessman went to the Court of Session in Edinburgh today in a bid to force the club to pay Mr Green's expenses. The case had been due to be heard on Friday but was moved forward as Lord Tyre was free to hear the case. Green, who led a takeover that purchased the Ibrox side's assets in 2012, is one of six men who are set to face high court proceedings in the near future in connection to their activities involving Rangers. He is expected to stand trial alongside fellow businessmen Craig Whyte, Gary Withey, David Grier, David Whitehouse, Paul Clark and Imran Ahmad. Green wants the club to pay the costs of his defence. Judge Lord Tyre today set a date for proceedings into the matter to take place at the civil court in Edinburgh on November 12. He added: "I am persuaded of the need for a debate." Green, who lives at an undisclosed address in France, had approached the club prior to his arrest on criminal charges. He requested the Ibrox side pay his legal costs in respect to the Police Scotland investigation. The former director claims that the club had agreed to pay any legal fees connected to his time at Rangers as part of his severance deal. But Rangers refused. The club's present chief executive Dave King told journalists that Green would have to pay his own lawyers. In a statement released to the press last month, King said: "Charles Green approached the club prior to his arrest and demanded that we pay his legal costs in respect of his co-operation with Police Scotland into his time as an officer of the club. "I advised him that we would not do so. He was subsequently arrested and has now approached the court to compel the club to pay the legal costs of his defence to the criminal charges. "This application will be strongly resisted." This prompted Mr Green's legal team to launch an action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh. Green, who made no plea or declaration when he initially appeared in court in relation to the criminal charges, was not present at the Court of Session today. He is expected to appear at the High Court in Edinburgh on Friday when a preliminary hearing into the criminal case is scheduled to call. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/charles-green-latest-judge-sets-6625735 This will set some precedent if he wins Pete. I wonder what Victim Support would say if the victims of a crime were forced to pay the legal costs of the alleged perpretrator of the crimes against them 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted October 14, 2015 Author Share Posted October 14, 2015 This will set some precedent if he wins Pete. I wonder what Victim Support would say if the victims of a crime were forced to pay the legal costs of the alleged perpretrator of the crimes against them Ordinary criminals will of course not have a contract to cover their cost. The precedent here will be can a director of a company make a contract for himself that covers his legal fees even although it is for crimes against the company? The director of a company as far as I know (and I don't know a lot on these facts) should act in the best interest of the company. That is the point I see Rangers contesting. The thing is, is acquiring the company fraudulently a crime against the company or a crime against other possible People/system? It is of course possible to acquire the company fraudulently but still have it's best interests at heart. If I steel a toy from Woolworths am I doing harm to the toy? From what I am led to believe the date set is for a debate where both sides can put their case, call witness's etc. If the judge finds reason that the courts should decide on then it will be put through the courts probably some time next year. I am sure there are people on here with more knowledge than me on the subject. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 If Green wins, the law is an ass... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted October 14, 2015 Author Share Posted October 14, 2015 If Green wins, the law is an ass... We all know it is at times. I am just not sure his crime is against Rangers. Whether that makes a difference or not I do not know as normally in a contract like that there is a clause ruling out criminal activity. From what I here Toxic has been spreading the word that Green's case is Iron clad but he is hearing that from people who want to believe that. The law has a way of kicking the victims in the teeth instead of looking after them. How many victims win claims against criminals,cowboys etc not to see a penny just because there is no pressure for the culprit to pay up. A lot of the time they just start up again under a different name. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7 6,158 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 There won't be any witnesses at the November hearing. One side or the other or perhaps both is saying that the opponent has not set out a legal case in writing. i. e. Even if everything the other fellow says in writing is true, to it doesn't entitle him to the order he's asking the Court to grant. I expect this hearing will be the end of it. There can't be much dispute about the facts. The issues will be the interpretation of the contract and whether the contract was granted to Green by himself or a stooge or by the Board independently. I say the end of it but Green will appeal if he loses. The text of his terms of service would be interesting. I wonder if forlan has it stowed away somewhere. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 he will win easy. but if he then loses the bigger case and is found guilty we will have the right to get the costs back I would think. Only problem is by then he will of took bankruptcy . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 4,422 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 he will win easy. but if he then loses the bigger case and is found guilty we will have the right to get the costs back I would think. Only problem is by then he will of took bankruptcy . What makes you say that? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 What makes you say that? what grounds are there to null and void the contract at this stage? The law will see him as innocent until proven guilty, so his coming criminal case will have zero bearing. The club must be arguing that the contract is null and void on another issue, I would guess that whoever signed the contract on the clubs behalf did so under duress or some similar issue. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I would guess that whoever signed the contract on the clubs behalf did so under duress or some similar issue. Or is another person tied up in some way in the alleged frauds. Either by turning his eyes the other way or receiving a separate benefit for allowing certain transactions to take place. I think this is the line Rangers will be using. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.