375+ # 0384

Loving the "Uma Thurman does Clockwork Orange" look!

 

Kim, I meant no malice it was just the quickest way to contest Mbzgurl's claim that everyone on this thread is a Ocean Joe fan.......... Please accept my apology for any offence caused since none was meant, I simply wanted to point out a contradictory claim made by her. I agree with your comments about Joe and I assure you that sometimes I think Joe should just give us situation updates but Joe is a free man. As for my commenting on Mbzgurl's post's I would tell you what I think of them but since I don't want a 30 day or permanent ban I will be very cautious and simply say I am deeply suspicious of any poster in this thread that hides behind an avatar, you don't, I don't, Joe doesn't etc. Hence my persistent question, Mbzgurl, who are you?

Again Kim, my apologies for any offence caused.
Timothy

 

I have to laugh when they accuse you of being anyone other than who you are. It's crazy that anyone who has the slightest connection to the classic car community does not immediately know your name and face.

 

Timothy, there is no need to apologise but thank you anyway

Kim

 

Oh, touche......

 

Timx10y, you get a pass, anyone in the US that is.....

 

Thanks Mr. Sunny Southern California +1

PS: Well....it's pretty hard to know who I am, (like you said) when you aren't connected to the Classic Car World (Joey is defineately not connected anywhere), or especially when you are a Dinky Car collector and live all the way on the other side of the globe in New Zealand !
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

ROLLS BUILDING
. COURT 17
. Matter before MR JUSTICE FLAUX. 
Thursday 19 March 2015. 
At 10:30
. APPLICATION
 2014-836 Bonhams 1793 Limited v Ms Kristine Kleve Lawson & 3 Otrs

A fascinating hearing before Judge Flaux (pictured) who, mercifully, is clearly determined to address the principal issues of the case and avoid the repetition of “four years of mounting litigation that has got no where".

There were no less than 25 lawyers and clerks present representing all parties, including no less then two Queens Councillors (the super models of the English judiciary system) representing Mr Wexner. Even Mr Zanotti had a team of three. I tried to work out what this was all costing and estimated £200 per minute. The British legal system maybe be brilliant but one thing it isn't is cheap and fortune favours the one with the deepest pocket !

Edited highlights from the two hours:

The Judge wants an inspection of the car (currently sitting in a warehouse in Southampton) to determine if it is 0384 or 0394. This appeared to be linked to the Zanotti claim on the car. Without seeing the papers, I have no idea what this is but his barrister did, somewhat unconvincingly, questioned if his clients stolen engine was in the car.

The Judge directed all parties to prepare a consolidated list of issues so he can actually identify and determine what is actually in dispute. Too many irrelevant pieces, people looking for skeletons and he wants to eliminate the numerous and irrelevant pleadings and deal with the issues.

Ford/Lawson lawyer argued jurisdiction and the stay of litigation in Ohio but the Judge was having none of it and made it clear that all of the issues (except the Gardner Ford dispute) were now before an English court, would be settled here and they were not going back. There has to have finality on all issues once and for all, the car is here, the money and even if the HOA was found invalid the ownership will be determined in London and the UK jurisdiction will bind Ohio.

Judge says the fundamental starting point is to work out who owns the car, if Swaters owns it then Swaters can give good title to Bonhams and the car can be sold and the money distributed. Judge did not understand why Swaters agreed to give 50% of the sale proceeds on top of the money that was paid by her father under a notarized legal agreement. Ford lawyer said the settlement agreement was proved a fraud by Swaters forensics. Funny moment when the Judge asked why he thought it was a fraud and the lawyer replied "because my client told me so" so the judge then asked him for the forensic report, which he didn't have, and was then given another copy, which he read and concluded that the findings gave an unqualified view that the document was valid.

Judge believes the case cries out for mediation before embarking on expensive litigation. Requested best endeavors to agree a consolidated list of issues by 27th May which would facilitate the mediation.

The Judge considers that the public vitriol and posting of Court documents on the Internet is outrageous. Judge to issue an order prohibiting the disclosure of all documents used in the proceedings and any breach would be a contempt of Court. Ford Lawyer argued this was too wide but the Judge disagreed, as he wanted to stop this “unedifying title tattle”.

Timing. A case management hearing was set for the 5th June. Disclosures completed by the end of July and determination of trial date and length thereafter.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Thanks for that Kim, very interesting. Seems that Mr Justice Flaux is cutting to the chase! Might even venture up to London on 5th June. Presumably one can just go in the public gallery?

Have a good weekend at Goodwood Kim. I was going to go but have to grand-daughter sit :-

 

I resemble that!

 

+1

 

like the idea of the judge taking control and cutting through the BS... if I read properly, he is intending to settle ownership issues in London... it is a good thing, but without a clear declaration of ownership from Ohio, there is no foundation on which for him to base his ruling on ownership... the judge can rule anyway he wants, but without Ohio issues completely resolved before he rules, any of the litigants can open another challenge in Ohio... the ownership gap must be closed and continuous in all jurisdictions... or never bring the car within CONUS...

what do the tea leaves say about the current situation with regard to the litigants and moving forward

 

The judge recommended mediation, but haven't the parties already initiated a trail before a court?

Could someone explain the process and the relationship between this hearing and litigation?

Thank you

 

Yes, I agree there is a jurisdictional matter, unless the UK court has title issue resolved by Ohio.

International private law has cases of this nature all the time with inheritance cases where the deceased had residency in one jurisdiction and the assets are in others. (lex fori, lex etc.)

 

Mediation is the way to go for all parties IMHO.

Kim IF the HOA is found invalid in London. KKL/Joe are free to open back up Ohio litigation. The only thing giving London the power is the HOA.

US courts wont recognize London's rulings if the HOA is invalid.

 

I doubt there is spirit for mediation, although it will definitely cost less.

What is Zanotti's claim, that the engine is his?

 

So theoretically the London court could put the car in Wexner's name but he couldn't bring it home if the Ohio case rules the sale illegitimate?

Sorry if the question is foolish but all the unedifying tittle tattle has me confused.

 

Lets see....so you have £200/per minute = $299.08 USD/per minute times 2 hours or 120 minutes= $36,000 dollars to begin on day 1.

Justice Flaux declared all ownership issues will be resolved in London, and that London's rulings will be binding in Ohio.

What happens when Joe's lawyer withdraws? Joe can't pay the bill. Neither can KKL.

Game over....?

 

Just what I thought

 

The London court has jurisdiction in Ohio?

 

No. London court has NO jurisdiction in Ohio or anywhere outside of it's domain

the litigants need to release / close all claims on all issues in Ohio, before London court can move forward with settling ownership there.... failing that, leaves a legal opening to another ownership challenge in Ohio... the judge is hoping he can induce the litigants to capitulate all claims to his London court

 

Some of you seem to be forgetting what the recent Ohio Appeals Court ruling said:

"By entering into the Heads of Agreement, which purported to extinguish all claims and counterclaims in this action, the parties have essentially prevented the trial court from taking any further action. The Heads of Agreement provided that the High Court of Justice in London would govern any disputes arising under the agreement. Ford and Lawson are currently contesting the validity of the Heads of Agreement. If that agreement is found by the London court to be valid and enforceable, its terms require eventual dismissal of the underlying action in this case."

If London upholds the validity of the HOA as written (as most interpret it anyway) then it seems it will be game over on the pending litigation in Ohio by way of Ford and Lawson signing away their rights.

>8^)
ER

 

Mbzgurl, who are you?

Btw, that doesn't take into account either that OJ might be able to successfully argue that either the HOA isn't a legally binding contract. Nor does it account for the fact that Mr. Ford might be receiving financing from a second party. I believe that only Joe knows what Joe is going to do.

 

Good post but several IF's, only time will tell.