Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Blaine

Plans for lord street

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, quilp said:

Good link that. HRH Howard burning with optimism's flames and usual fanfare. Kane put a lot of effort in.

How much will giving them the heave-ho cost the tax-payer? 

what ever it costs to get rid of fat howard is worth it.

 

 

oh,  you meant kane,  never mind...........

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, quilp said:

Good link that. HRH Howard burning with optimism's flames and usual fanfare. Kane put a lot of effort in.

How much will giving them the heave-ho cost the tax-payer? 

Why will they be given the heave ho?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going by Kevster's link I must have my aggrieved parties mixed up. Does Sondica have a case for damages or expenses? Haven't they been given the heave-ho? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah they are unhappy at being given the heave-ho. 

The subsequent idea of the hotel / cinema there is still in place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Donald Trumps said:

Is the Travel Lodge again no more?

Doesn’t affect the plans at all.

Itll be built before any case comes to trial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, quilp said:

Going by Kevster's link I must have my aggrieved parties mixed up. Does Sondica have a case for damages or expenses? Haven't they been given the heave-ho? 

They don’t know. They want to find out. The hearing was because they applied, quite late in the day, to be given government documents to see if they could claim. It’s called pre action disclosure.

The court said they might have a claim, it might be arguable, that doesn’t mean they’d win, just that if what they say is true a court would hear their case. 

So they’re going to get the papers. Then see if they’ve got a case.

it won’t upset the current deal. It’s just for their alleged wasted time and effort. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clearing it up. That'll teach me to speed read. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Itll be built before any case comes to trial

Well now, either that's a very optimistic view of the build, or a very pessimistic view of the speed of the courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

Well now, either that's a very optimistic view of the build, or a very pessimistic view of the speed of the courts.

Neither. The court proceedings haven’t even started.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Neither. The court proceedings haven’t even started.

Or the build! Race on...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2019 at 9:33 PM, thesultanofsheight said:

So you dont think it’s odd that a company thinks it’s won a bid with IOMG, and then a month later someone whose dad has a contract with the IOMG wins the very same bid despite the fact the original bidder seems to think they had already won it? 

The actual ruling is here. Looks like the same bid to me despite what you said

https://www.judgments.im/content/J2470.htm

Deemsters conclusion which seems to be basically urging them to settle out of court. Probably more of our cash spent making this go away. 

”48. I conclude by stating that, on the key issue of contention in this application, I am persuaded that the Applicants have a potential and arguable cause of action and that the Respondent is likely (perhaps with others) to be a party to subsequent proceedings. I am also persuaded that the remaining requirements of Rule 7.45 are satisfied and that in particular disclosure before proceedings have started is desirable in order both to dispose fairly of the anticipated proceedings and to assist the dispute to be resolved without proceedings, and to save costs. Subject to further submissions on the precise content and scope of the order, I am persuaded that an order for pre-action disclosure is appropriate in this case.”

So looks like the taxpayer is going to get shafted... yet again!

When will shite like this cease?

It's feckin' toy town governance. Do we employ any adults in IOMG? At all?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

So looks like the taxpayer is going to get shafted... yet again!

When will shite like this cease?

It's feckin' toy town governance. Do we employ any adults in IOMG? At all?

Not by mental age no!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

So looks like the taxpayer is going to get shafted... yet again!

When will shite like this cease?

It's feckin' toy town governance. Do we employ any adults in IOMG? At all?

Favours for mates/cronyism and nepotism are cornerstones of our governance.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...