I think the normal expression is "think before you speak" -in every instance in this case the "security for costs" are paid by the the plaintiff (CHM) so that is simply maintaining the same methodology. the horrifying thing is that MMX are saying that their case relies solely on the evidence of Grimaldi and Barnes - if that is the case, and having some knowledge of these people, i would think on balance that MMX will go down
cheers
chm v mmx case deferred, page-8
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 31 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
