Talk:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Facts" section does not reflect the HoL judgement against the club[edit]

I was quite confused on first reading this because (as a layman) it is not at all obvious from the "Facts" that the club was obliged to repay most of the stolen money. The last paragraph takes us up to the Court of Appeal (Lipkin Gorman lose) versus the club and the HoL versus the bank (Lipkin Gorman abandon claim). The fact that the HoL decided that the club must repay their takings from Cass is buried further down the page.

I think this dates from eg https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lipkin_Gorman_v_Karpnale_Ltd&oldid=313627204 where the bank is not mentioned in the direct progression from Facts to Judgement (by the HoL) making the outcome much clearer. (I think it may also be the case that to a non-layman "Facts" is a term of art referring to the situation before the final judgement?)

However this page has been around for a while in a fairly static state and so I thought I'd ask here before leaping in. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]