Update No.1

Judge opens seeking some clarification.

Gerald Barling opened PCG’s case by having a discussion with the Judge as he tried to clarify some immediate issues.

Judge admitted he hadn’t done his homework but planned to read all the evidence this evening. He then tried to summarise the two arguments and focussed on the uncertainty element of our case.

He was trying to argue that 20 years ago - he queried about applying the common law cases which could quell the uncertainty. He tried to draw a parallel between footballers and popstars as they don’t provide equipment but were under the control. He tried to ignore the arguments of the hypothetical contracts and tried to emphasis the reality of the situation. He tried to discount all the actual contracts and hypothetical contracts.

He started running into the corporate structure, the judge wasn’t aware we have to work as limited companies and he then quickly realised its because the clients don’t want the employees or employers duties. He also tried to dwell on the less than five per cent shareholders – looking at the big companies versus small companies – also referring to big companies supplying people who didn’t get salary.

Gerald started getting into allocation of training costs and expenses and judge immediately picked up that we would be operating at a tax loss with nothing to offset it against.

Gerald was then talking about the one-man band company with full corporate goodwill who can compete against the big companies and said that we can’t do that because we’re competing with one hand behind our back.

Then got into skeleton arguments.

(As told to Susie by Gary Wallage, quattro)