Read on Twitter
NGN Response to JD Application for Permission to Appeal. Ok so, to be clear, NGN didnāt have to respond now - they couldāve waited to see if permission was granted first but they clearly want to cut JD off at the passā¦ so theyāve submitted a responseā¦. What joy! 
I have yet to read the whole document (itās not up yet) but Iāll tweet now re @nickwallis fab tweet thread posting the content of the response filed by NGN et al. Soā¦.
It says the respondents (NGN) ask the court to reject the application for permission to appeal (PTA) which is solely against the judgeās findings of factā¦ well, itās not quite that simpleā¦ JDās team have argued that the Judge failed to do his job...
NGN says Judge Nicol was āsteeped in the caseā (in other words completely immersed in it)ā¦ they say he heard a 3.5 week trial with over 30 witnesses. He did, but then disregarded all but one of their testimonies without proper explanationā¦
They continue about how many documents there wereā¦ messages etcā¦ okay - but whatās the point? Most cases that go to trial have loads of documents & files of evidenceā¦ the Judge has to read and consider them in depth though with proper analysisā¦
NGN saying the appeal would duplicate the trial Judgeās effortsā¦ going on about resourcesā¦ sounds like AH at this point.
NGN say the Judge conducted āpainstaking analysisā - where?! He reached conclusions but it is obvious that there was a clear, logical rationale of those conclusions flowing from the evidence & his analysis of it.
NGN contests the examples that JDās team have given in their Grounds of Appeal but as the response is limited they canāt go into detail (that is true but it means we donāt know how compelling their arguments would beā¦)
They argue that it is āwrongā to state that in the tapes AH never referred to violence akin to that which she recounted in her oral evidenceā¦ well can someone direct me to the bit on the tapes where she says he brutally assaulted her and broke her nose etc?!
As for NGNās responses to the actual grounds of appeal - their responses are largely āthatās wrongā! They then go on to place emphasis on assertions that JD is continuing to subject AH to global humiliation & his appeal is āoffensiveā etcā¦
It then concludes with ultimately them saying that bringing the appeal is to promote his position in the USā¦
So in a nutshell, nothing unexpected really. The response is limited to only a few pages so yes, there isnāt much room for them to expand their argumentsā¦ which technically would prob be argued better at the actual appealā¦ butā¦
NGN are prob aware that JD being granted permission to appeal is likely to shift things quite a bit & change the dynamics, esp given the VA trial is imminentā¦
From what Iāve read, there is nothing of great substance in this responseā¦ itās largely just ātheyāre wrong!ā Which is all well and good but, much like the judgment, it doesnāt really provide compelling reasons why.
It claims that Judge Nicol conducted detailed analysis but if you read the Judgment it is clear he didnāt. In reading a judgment you should be able to read all of his discussion of the evidence, testimony etcā¦.& clearly understand how and why he reached his conclusionā¦
I struggle to see how anyone can find logical reason in a Judge saying (paraphrasing)ā¦ āI know AH lied under oath but that doesnāt matterā¦ sheās still more credible than this mountain of evidence which proves sheās lyingā¦ā!
The response is what it isā¦ so we will need to see what is decided re JDās permission to appeal. Often the permission to appeal is decided on paper and the decision is just given without a hearing.
On complex matters such as this, they may want an oral hearing so we will see. If the decision is given without a hearing and it denies permission, JD CAN request an oral hearing on it, but if it is denied after that, then thatās it.
Wowā¦ itās only 8.30amā¦ havenāt even had coffee yet! 
