Tribe Technology set to deliver healthy pipeline of orders from Tier-One miners. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Mark Paul's face
Mark Paul
Fri Jul 3 2015 - 01:30
That ringing sound you can hear is possibly coming from the ears of Tom Anderson, the former chairman of Aim-listed Circle Oil.
The businessman this week received what could politely be described as a dressing down from Mr Justice Brian Cregan.
It came in a High Court judgment over a dispute concerning a stalled deal to open a Las Vegas-inspired nightclub on Dublin's Harcourt Street, which was to be financed by the scion of the Anderson cinema- owning family.
Grab yourself some popcorn and a bucket of soda. The judgment is a thriller, utterly fascinating for its level of detail about the approach to business of one of Ireland’s most publicity-shy investors.
READ MORE
Anderson was part of a consortium including radio investor Mike Ormond and publican Colin Dolan, which in 2012 approached former Pod nightclub owner John Reynolds about leasing the premises from him after the Pod shut.
The two sides fell out over the terms of the deal, including the building of a new fire escape, before settling a High Court case in 2014.
That settlement promptly fell out of bed when the deal wasn’t closed as arranged, resulting in another trip to the courts, which Reynolds won this week.
The lease is to be rescinded and Reynolds is to be awarded damages for breach of contract, after the judge found the Anderson consortium had made “an unscrupulous attempt” to leverage extra concessions from him.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Cregan said Anderson, the main financier of the deal, was the “key architect” of the consortium’s strategy in relation to Reynolds.
The beak expressed bemusement that Anderson had such a "strange relationship" with the consortium's solicitor, Simon Carty, to whom he had apparently never spoken despite being represented by him.
The judgment recalls how, under oath, Anderson explained why he didn’t want his own consortium’s solicitor to know anything about his finances.
“You’ve got to understand that Mr Carty has no idea what my status is,” said Anderson. “He has no idea whether I have funds or not and I don’t want him to know . . . I don’t want guys like that putting pressure on me ...”
Reynolds’s counsel asked what he meant by “guys like that”.
Anderson responded: “People who aren’t on my slate.”
Reynolds’s lawyer asked: “Are you telling me you don’t trust him?”
“He doesn’t know me,” replied Anderson.
The judge said this exchange demonstrated “how evasive Mr Anderson was in the witness box”.
The judge then criticised Anderson for having “scant regard for the discovery process” for delaying the discovery of documents relating to his finances.
“This . . . can only be characterised as a deliberate attempt to mislead the court,” said Mr Justice Cregan. “The extent to which Mr Anderson sought to mislead the court in relation to the payment of monies is clear.”
The j