Talk:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd

"Facts" section does not reflect the HoL judgement against the club
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)