Always a Wasp
General Category => Wasps Rugby Discussion => Topic started by: W2APS on April 16, 2023, 11:00:45 AM
-
https://www.law360.com/assetmanagement/articles/1597064/uk-litigation-roundup-here-s-what-you-missed-in-london
Richardson v. Dawbarn and another
The owner of professional rugby union team Wasps RFC brought legal proceedings against law firm Kennedys Law and its banking partner Robert Dawbarn in a claim filed on April 6.
Kennedys Law acted as legal adviser to the rugby club from 2012 until it fell into financial trouble in 2022. It entered into administration in October.
Derek Richardson is represented by Standley & Co Solicitors.
The case is Richardson v. Dawbarn and another, case number BL-2023-000528, in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.
I have no background in any law stuff. This came up on my daily Google news Wasps search.
-
Dawbarn a listed Director of Wasps Holdings.
So Derek is bringing a case against a fellow Director, who came on-board after the 2012 purchase from Steve Hayes
-
Dawbarn a listed Director of Wasps Holdings.
So Derek is bringing a case against a fellow Director, who came on-board after the 2012 purchase from Steve Hayes
I suppose the question is: What was there experience and supposed expertise that led to them being appointed as a director? And therefore how might they be seen as having failed in that role subsequently?
I'm sure the details will come out soon enough.
-
Not found anything further from this. Wonder what Derek is currently up to?
Robert Dawbarn is doing important work to get new Wasps up and running at the moment.
-
I wouldn't hold your breath that any useful info will come out of this, in the short term anyway.
Out of court settlement or a very technical hearing around legal advice that will be wrapped p in legal jargon?
-
Robert Dawbarn is doing important work to get new Wasps up and running at the moment.
May have been a little premature...
-
Would really like to hear from Derek.
He will be a guilty party for me until he speaks. An explanation or apology will do, just not silence, which feels incriminating. I am sure he has a story to tell which puts him in good light but 167 people lost their jobs and thousands their club, silence is not the way.
-
Would really like to hear from Derek.
He will be a guilty party for me until he speaks. An explanation or apology will do, just not silence, which feels incriminating. I am sure he has a story to tell which puts him in good light but 167 people lost their jobs and thousands their club, silence is not the way.
I've spoken to him about this, it is coming. But it is connected to the current legal proceedings so he has to be very careful not to prejudice the case. I think it's fair to say he wants the truth out as much as anyone.
-
Would really like to hear from Derek.
He will be a guilty party for me until he speaks. An explanation or apology will do, just not silence, which feels incriminating. I am sure he has a story to tell which puts him in good light but 167 people lost their jobs and thousands their club, silence is not the way.
I've spoken to him about this, it is coming. But it is connected to the current legal proceedings so he has to be very careful not to prejudice the case. I think it's fair to say he wants the truth out as much as anyone.
I have spoken to many of the former employees (players/coaching side), and the vast majority do not blame Derek, other than to say he was too trusting of those he employed to run the organisation. The one name, in the blame game, that keeps coming up though was the main driver in the move to Coventry, and was a former Finance Director at the RFU.
-
Would really like to hear from Derek.
He will be a guilty party for me until he speaks. An explanation or apology will do, just not silence, which feels incriminating. I am sure he has a story to tell which puts him in good light but 167 people lost their jobs and thousands their club, silence is not the way.
I've spoken to him about this, it is coming. But it is connected to the current legal proceedings so he has to be very careful not to prejudice the case. I think it's fair to say he wants the truth out as much as anyone.
I have spoken to many of the former employees (players/coaching side), and the vast majority do not blame Derek, other than to say he was too trusting of those he employed to run the organisation. The one name, in the blame game, that keeps coming up though was the main driver in the move to Coventry, and was a former Finance Director at the RFU.
Same rumours here.
-
I cannot blame Derek for anything, certainly not until we are privy to a great deal more info. And then I probably won't blame him anyway. But I do suspect the RFU Faceless Ones one helluva lot.
-
Pudsey has agreed with someone on Twitter who has made a rather disgusting remark about what he?d like to do to Derek and the RFU, so not everyone appears to be giving Derek the benefit of the doubt for now.
-
Pudsey has agreed with someone on Twitter who has made a rather disgusting remark about what he?d like to do to Derek and the RFU, so not everyone appears to be giving Derek the benefit of the doubt for now.
Probably to be expected considering Derek is taking Dawbarn to court, and Dawbarn is heavily involved in the group that pays Pudsey's wages.
-
Sorry but how can Derek not be responsible?
He was in charge when Wasps went bust.
If someone he employed has messed up, the buck still stops with Derek, he was in charge.
If a ship runs aground the Captain is responsible, whether someone else did that actual mistake or not.
-
Well I am sure that there is a story there, in time we can judge fairly.
That said, it is too seductive to blame the RFU, and likely wrong. They have not helped, but the blame must reside in Wasps.
One thing, the players were told everything was OK,which means they can't have been well informed. Of course you could buy the line that everything was OK till it rapidly was not, but I don't buy that.
-
Sorry but how can Derek not be responsible?
He was in charge when Wasps went bust.
If someone he employed has messed up, the buck still stops with Derek, he was in charge.
If a ship runs aground the Captain is responsible, whether someone else did that actual mistake or not.
But Derek wasn't the captain, he was the owner of the shipping line. He might have chosen where the ship was gonna sail, and maybe helped appoint a captain, but he wasn't at the helm of that ship.
-
Sorry but how can Derek not be responsible?
He was in charge when Wasps went bust.
If someone he employed has messed up, the buck still stops with Derek, he was in charge.
If a ship runs aground the Captain is responsible, whether someone else did that actual mistake or not.
But Derek wasn't the captain, he was the owner of the shipping line. He might have chosen where the ship was gonna sail, and maybe helped appoint a captain, but he wasn't at the helm of that ship.
Kind of why he needs to speak out - when he can.
-
Nice analogy VV
-
Fun anology to use. Of his Fleet of 3 ships (1 shared ownership), 2 have sunk and the other has been gifted to the other half owners who couldn't afford to operate her and laid off all the staff.
The container yard he owned was sold off to the highest bidder and the dry dock to the other half owner of it who has let it out to another shipping company for maintenance works.
😂
-
You enjoy rubbing salt into wounds do you?
-
You enjoy rubbing salt into wounds do you?
He's one of two.