Round One Goes Against SWB

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 14:38

In the court case between SWB and a couple of buyers, the first round went against SWB with costs.

Advocate for SWB: Gurkan & Gurkan

Advocate for the owners: Dolun Ustuner



Today's verdict was about the addition of a second affidavit based on what I had written on C44. SWB was seeking to include a second affidavit in their application for an injunction to muzzle the buyers. The court refused their application with costs. I have been saying this all along, no surprises there. For details see http://www.cyprus44.com/forums/26554.asp

If they are really complaining about what I write here or elsewhee, they should sue me and have the courage to face me in court

ismet

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 16:04

So what does this mean ? to either party is it possible to explain

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 17:56

Good question Sienna. It means many things:

1. The judge decided that what I wrote after they filed their original case cannot be included in the case. This also means that half of their detailed claim against the defendants has been knocked down automatically.



2. There were too many good legal objections which the judge did not touch upon i.e. a) how could they muzzle me through others, b) how could others be responsible for what I wrote, c) how could they file a complaint without quoting the actual words but only giving what they understood them to mean. Lots of fatal mistakes in the legal sense.



3. The summer recess is near, so there is no chance left for a proper trial of the detailed case before September but the application for the injunction can go ahead. I hope SWB has the appetite to carry on with it during the summer recess and face another big disappointment and of course more legal costs against them. It was obvious from day one that itwould backfire on them.

ismet

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
07/06/2010 23:38

so this is good news for owners to strive for a tendering process on managed complexs - yes? thank you in advance

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
08/06/2010 00:07

Sienna, in a nutshell my answer is yes.

ismet