Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Should there be an out of court settlement, how likely that the DHSC shall settle in full? Any negotiated settlement would likely involve a compromise, I'd have thought. Also, pointless rushing into further acquisition, I'd rather hear something positive from the current stable, for instance growth in revenue for Q1 and an earnings estimate.
Gizmo, Should the DHSC believe that Primerdesign have no viable defence, why the application? Surely they'd allow the trial to go ahead, in order to secure their requested refund in full. Not for the DHSC to say there's's no real prospect of success for Primerdesgin, therefore we (the DHSC) shall submit an application for Summary Judgment.
Having considered Friday's announcement, makes little sense at the eleventh hour, have the DHSC backed themselves into a corner? If only we understood which aspect the application concerns, are they attempting to force our hand and accept a reduced settlement. The application shall not consider any evidence in detail.
Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules sets the test for summary judgment. It is there for appropriate cases to be disposed of summarily: when there's no real prospect of success.
My best guess, is that this is the formal process that the DHSC has to follow before throwing in the towel, their last throw of the dice.
I feel that Friday was the beginning of the end and I shall be surprised if this dispute now goes the distance, hoping that this shall be settled very quickly following the pre-trial review.
Https://hallellis.co.uk/summary-judgment-applications-defences/
I feel that this is a tick box exercise for the DHSC, they've realised that their claim is not fit for trial and therefore it would be wrong to proceed, however they're required to be meticulous and follow due process before being able to settle the counter claim, after all they're using the public purse. Summary Judgement is clearly a formal process for cessation of legal proceedings, there's nothing to suggest that the DHSC believe that the summary judgment shall rule in their favour.
For the DHSC the writing is already on the wall and they know it.
Courts say that summary judgment is:
designed to deal with cases that are not fit for trial at all: Lord Woolf in Swain v Hillman (1999), the Court of Appeal
The DHSC may already have conceded, that certain aspects of its claim have no prospect of success, therefore possible that the case hinges upon this one aspect. Should the DHSC be unsuccessful with this Summary Judgement, I'd imagine that their case shall fall apart and won't be fit for trial.
Https://hallellis.co.uk/summary-judgment-applications-defences/
Summary judgment is a court order - judgment - which brings litigation to an end early.
The legal proceedings are brought to an end when, at a hearing of a summary judgment application a court finds that the claim or the defence:
has no real prospect of success, and
there is no other compelling reason why the case should be allowed to proceed to trial.
Courts say that summary judgment is:
designed to deal with cases that are not fit for trial at all: Lord Woolf in Swain v Hillman (1999), the Court of Appeal
The judgment avoids a close examination of all the evidence which might be produced at the usual end point of litigation, which is the trial.
The parties are saved significant time, expense, worry and the distraction of enduring the entire litigation process through to the trial. There is no point.
In law, a summary judgment, also referred to as judgment as a matter of law or summary disposition,[1] is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Summary judgments may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case. The formulation of the summary judgment standard is stated in somewhat different ways by courts in different jurisdictions.
In England and Wales, the court rules for a party without a full trial when "the claim, defence or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial."