Nice to see Baghdad Bob and Ms Forgetful inadvertently had a small hand in supporting the appeal.
Does paragraph 33 suggest that while Diamandis didn't provide indisputable evidence the company owed him cash, the the matter could still go to trial?
Not in this case. This case arose because Diamandis applied for a Winding up order against the club on the grounds that they'd not paid him money he claimed was owed to him. But for such an order to be granted, the debt must be undisputed. Hence the club applied to have the petition for the Winding Up Order dismissed (as the debt was not beyond dispute). That application was initially rejected by the original judge in the summer and this hearing was the club appealing against that rejection. In this hearing the judges upheld the club's appeal, i.e. agreed that any alleged debt was very far from beyond dispute, and hence the Winding Up petition was effectively dismissed. So the ruling means that the debt is not proved beyond dispute, but it does not mean at least some of it is not owed, although equally it does not mean that it is. The core question seems to be not whether Diamandis is owed money, but
a) how much of what he is claiming he is actually owed
b) who owes it to him - the club, the old holding co or the Wills family.
This judgement casts doubt on his full claims in a) and makes it much more likely that the club is in the clear on b).
I think
