PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

KS55 said:
The grounds for appeal are very narrow. City would have to show that verdict was either wrong in law or perverse.Merely contending a factual finding is not enough. There is no appeal to CAS allowed under the PL rules.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but this is a bit simplistic and somewhat misleading. What needs to be stressed is that there's no automatic right of appeal outside the purportedly independent appeal process outlined in section W of the PL's rules.

Thus, no appeal to CAS is possible. There is, under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, a right of appeal to the High Court in certain limited circumstances, but the lawyers on here have been unanimous in suggesting that we shouldn't believe they're likely to apply in City's case as that would require a lack of professionalism on the part of the Independent Commission that's likely incommensurate with its members' eminence and pedigree.

By way of background, section 68 lists a range of circumstances in which such an appeal is possible. These circumstances are referred to collectively under the phrase "serious irregularity", an outcome that, as stated, a prudent observer would expect the Independent Commission in City's case to avoid.

For completeness, though it's not relevant to us, there's also a right of appeal under section 69 of the 1996 Act on a point of law. However, this right can be excluded by the parties and, regrettably the PL's rules (which bind City and the PL in these proceedings) do so, although they never used to.

However, within the scope of section W, appeals are possible and can be lodged against a decision of the Independent Commission in a case such as City's. That can be against a decision on the merits or solely against any sanction that's imposed.

Any such appeal must be lodged with the Chair of the Judicial Panel following the conclusion of the Commission’s proceedings and notification of its decision. This must be done within the timframe and following the procedure for filing an appeal, as detailed in section W of the rules (found in the Premier League Handbook).

An Appeal Board is appointed by the Chair of the Judicial Panel. As with the original Independent Commission, the Appeal Board has three members.

The Appeal Board has wide discretion to deal with any appeal it considers. It can allow the appeal, dismiss the appeal or make any order it deems fit, including varying the original sanction or decision imposed by the Independent Commission. What it won't do is look again at findings of fact (rather than law) determined by the Independent Commission.

What it won't do is rehear the case. All findings of fact that the Independent Commission makes will be respected, which in itself should make the appeal process much quicker.

The following is a list of typical grounds allegations as to which might cause appeals to be launched in proceedings such as these:
  • Procedural errors during the original hearing
  • A finding by the panel that is inconsistent with the evidence before it
  • An unreasonable or disproportionate sanction
  • Freshly available or newly discovered evidence
  • The misapplication or misinterpretation of relevant laws or regulations
However, this list isn't exhaustive. It could be any reason that a party regards as justifying a review of the Independent Commission's decision.

Thus, when the Independent Commission's determination on liability is finally made public, we're reliably led to believe that the sanctions hearing will follow (if City are found liable for any breach). However, it would be entirely expected for either or both parties to appeal, depending on what's decided in terms of liability and sanctions.

As noted above, it won't be anything like as long as the proceedings involving the Independent Commission. It will still probably take months, though.
 
petrusha said:
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but this is a bit simplistic and somewhat misleading. What needs to be stressed is that there's no automatic right of appeal outside the purportedly independent appeal process outlined in section W of the PL's rules.

Thus, no appeal to CAS is possible. There is, under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, a right of appeal to the High Court in certain limited circumstances, but the lawyers on here have been unanimous in suggesting that we shouldn't believe they're likely to apply in City's case as that would require a lack of professionalism on the part of the Independent Commission that's likely incommensurate with its members' eminence and pedigree.

By way of background, section 68 lists a range of circumstances in which such an appeal is possible. These circumstances are referred to collectively under the phrase "serious irregularity", an outcome that, as stated, a prudent observer would expect the Independent Commission in City's case to avoid.

For completeness, though it's not relevant to us, there's also a right of appeal under section 69 of the 1996 Act on a point of law. However, this right can be excluded by the parties and, regrettably the PL's rules (which bind City and the PL in these proceedings) do so, although they never used to.

However, within the scope of section W, appeals are possible and can be lodged against a decision of the Independent Commission in a case such as City's. That can be against a decision on the merits or solely against any sanction that's imposed.

Any such appeal must be lodged with the Chair of the Judicial Panel following the conclusion of the Commission’s proceedings and notification of its decision. This must be done within the timframe and following the procedure for filing an appeal, as detailed in section W of the rules (found in the Premier League Handbook).

An Appeal Board is appointed by the Chair of the Judicial Panel. As with the original Independent Commission, the Appeal Board has three members.

The Appeal Board has wide discretion to deal with any appeal it considers. It can allow the appeal, dismiss the appeal or make any order it deems fit, including varying the original sanction or decision imposed by the Independent Commission. What it won't do is look again at findings of fact (rather than law) determined by the Independent Commission.

What it won't do is rehear the case. All findings of fact that the Independent Commission makes will be respected, which in itself should make the appeal process much quicker.

The following is a list of typical grounds allegations as to which might cause appeals to be launched in proceedings such as these:
  • Procedural errors during the original hearing
  • A finding by the panel that is inconsistent with the evidence before it
  • An unreasonable or disproportionate sanction
  • Freshly available or newly discovered evidence
  • The misapplication or misinterpretation of relevant laws or regulations
However, this list isn't exhaustive. It could be any reason that a party regards as justifying a review of the Independent Commission's decision.

Thus, when the Independent Commission's determination on liability is finally made public, we're reliably led to believe that the sanctions hearing will follow (if City are found liable for any breach). However, it would be entirely expected for either or both parties to appeal, depending on what's decided in terms of liability and sanctions.

As noted above, it won't be anything like as long as the proceedings involving the Independent Commission. It will still probably take months, though.
Click to expand...
Can a decision on a point of law be appealed under section W?
 
petrusha said:
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but this is a bit simplistic and somewhat misleading. What needs to be stressed is that there's no automatic right of appeal outside the purportedly independent appeal process outlined in section W of the PL's rules.

Thus, no appeal to CAS is possible. There is, under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, a right of appeal to the High Court in certain limited circumstances, but the lawyers on here have been unanimous in suggesting that we shouldn't believe they're likely to apply in City's case as that would require a lack of professionalism on the part of the Independent Commission that's likely incommensurate with its members' eminence and pedigree.

By way of background, section 68 lists a range of circumstances in which such an appeal is possible. These circumstances are referred to collectively under the phrase "serious irregularity", an outcome that, as stated, a prudent observer would expect the Independent Commission in City's case to avoid.

For completeness, though it's not relevant to us, there's also a right of appeal under section 69 of the 1996 Act on a point of law. However, this right can be excluded by the parties and, regrettably the PL's rules (which bind City and the PL in these proceedings) do so, although they never used to.

However, within the scope of section W, appeals are possible and can be lodged against a decision of the Independent Commission in a case such as City's. That can be against a decision on the merits or solely against any sanction that's imposed.

Any such appeal must be lodged with the Chair of the Judicial Panel following the conclusion of the Commission’s proceedings and notification of its decision. This must be done within the timframe and following the procedure for filing an appeal, as detailed in section W of the rules (found in the Premier League Handbook).

An Appeal Board is appointed by the Chair of the Judicial Panel. As with the original Independent Commission, the Appeal Board has three members.

The Appeal Board has wide discretion to deal with any appeal it considers. It can allow the appeal, dismiss the appeal or make any order it deems fit, including varying the original sanction or decision imposed by the Independent Commission. What it won't do is look again at findings of fact (rather than law) determined by the Independent Commission.

What it won't do is rehear the case. All findings of fact that the Independent Commission makes will be respected, which in itself should make the appeal process much quicker.

The following is a list of typical grounds allegations as to which might cause appeals to be launched in proceedings such as these:
  • Procedural errors during the original hearing
  • A finding by the panel that is inconsistent with the evidence before it
  • An unreasonable or disproportionate sanction
  • Freshly available or newly discovered evidence
  • The misapplication or misinterpretation of relevant laws or regulations
However, this list isn't exhaustive. It could be any reason that a party regards as justifying a review of the Independent Commission's decision.

Thus, when the Independent Commission's determination on liability is finally made public, we're reliably led to believe that the sanctions hearing will follow (if City are found liable for any breach). However, it would be entirely expected for either or both parties to appeal, depending on what's decided in terms of liability and sanctions.

As noted above, it won't be anything like as long as the proceedings involving the Independent Commission. It will still probably take months, though.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your comprehensive run down. As always the rules are clear as mud.
 
Last edited:
Is it possible that both parties have the result and the appeal (from whoever lost) is being heard in secrecy, Then when the verdict is announced it will be final and draw a line.
 
petrusha said:
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but this is a bit simplistic and somewhat misleading. What needs to be stressed is that there's no automatic right of appeal outside the purportedly independent appeal process outlined in section W of the PL's rules.

Thus, no appeal to CAS is possible. There is, under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, a right of appeal to the High Court in certain limited circumstances, but the lawyers on here have been unanimous in suggesting that we shouldn't believe they're likely to apply in City's case as that would require a lack of professionalism on the part of the Independent Commission that's likely incommensurate with its members' eminence and pedigree.

By way of background, section 68 lists a range of circumstances in which such an appeal is possible. These circumstances are referred to collectively under the phrase "serious irregularity", an outcome that, as stated, a prudent observer would expect the Independent Commission in City's case to avoid.

For completeness, though it's not relevant to us, there's also a right of appeal under section 69 of the 1996 Act on a point of law. However, this right can be excluded by the parties and, regrettably the PL's rules (which bind City and the PL in these proceedings) do so, although they never used to.

However, within the scope of section W, appeals are possible and can be lodged against a decision of the Independent Commission in a case such as City's. That can be against a decision on the merits or solely against any sanction that's imposed.

Any such appeal must be lodged with the Chair of the Judicial Panel following the conclusion of the Commission’s proceedings and notification of its decision. This must be done within the timframe and following the procedure for filing an appeal, as detailed in section W of the rules (found in the Premier League Handbook).

An Appeal Board is appointed by the Chair of the Judicial Panel. As with the original Independent Commission, the Appeal Board has three members.

The Appeal Board has wide discretion to deal with any appeal it considers. It can allow the appeal, dismiss the appeal or make any order it deems fit, including varying the original sanction or decision imposed by the Independent Commission. What it won't do is look again at findings of fact (rather than law) determined by the Independent Commission.

What it won't do is rehear the case. All findings of fact that the Independent Commission makes will be respected, which in itself should make the appeal process much quicker.

The following is a list of typical grounds allegations as to which might cause appeals to be launched in proceedings such as these:
  • Procedural errors during the original hearing
  • A finding by the panel that is inconsistent with the evidence before it
  • An unreasonable or disproportionate sanction
  • Freshly available or newly discovered evidence
  • The misapplication or misinterpretation of relevant laws or regulations
However, this list isn't exhaustive. It could be any reason that a party regards as justifying a review of the Independent Commission's decision.

Thus, when the Independent Commission's determination on liability is finally made public, we're reliably led to believe that the sanctions hearing will follow (if City are found liable for any breach). However, it would be entirely expected for either or both parties to appeal, depending on what's decided in terms of liability and sanctions.

As noted above, it won't be anything like as long as the proceedings involving the Independent Commission. It will still probably take months, though.
Click to expand...

Good to hear from you again :)
 
petrusha said:
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but this is a bit simplistic and somewhat misleading. What needs to be stressed is that there's no automatic right of appeal outside the purportedly independent appeal process outlined in section W of the PL's rules.

Thus, no appeal to CAS is possible. There is, under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, a right of appeal to the High Court in certain limited circumstances, but the lawyers on here have been unanimous in suggesting that we shouldn't believe they're likely to apply in City's case as that would require a lack of professionalism on the part of the Independent Commission that's likely incommensurate with its members' eminence and pedigree.

By way of background, section 68 lists a range of circumstances in which such an appeal is possible. These circumstances are referred to collectively under the phrase "serious irregularity", an outcome that, as stated, a prudent observer would expect the Independent Commission in City's case to avoid.

For completeness, though it's not relevant to us, there's also a right of appeal under section 69 of the 1996 Act on a point of law. However, this right can be excluded by the parties and, regrettably the PL's rules (which bind City and the PL in these proceedings) do so, although they never used to.

However, within the scope of section W, appeals are possible and can be lodged against a decision of the Independent Commission in a case such as City's. That can be against a decision on the merits or solely against any sanction that's imposed.

Any such appeal must be lodged with the Chair of the Judicial Panel following the conclusion of the Commission’s proceedings and notification of its decision. This must be done within the timframe and following the procedure for filing an appeal, as detailed in section W of the rules (found in the Premier League Handbook).

An Appeal Board is appointed by the Chair of the Judicial Panel. As with the original Independent Commission, the Appeal Board has three members.

The Appeal Board has wide discretion to deal with any appeal it considers. It can allow the appeal, dismiss the appeal or make any order it deems fit, including varying the original sanction or decision imposed by the Independent Commission. What it won't do is look again at findings of fact (rather than law) determined by the Independent Commission.

What it won't do is rehear the case. All findings of fact that the Independent Commission makes will be respected, which in itself should make the appeal process much quicker.

The following is a list of typical grounds allegations as to which might cause appeals to be launched in proceedings such as these:
  • Procedural errors during the original hearing
  • A finding by the panel that is inconsistent with the evidence before it
  • An unreasonable or disproportionate sanction
  • Freshly available or newly discovered evidence
  • The misapplication or misinterpretation of relevant laws or regulations
However, this list isn't exhaustive. It could be any reason that a party regards as justifying a review of the Independent Commission's decision.

Thus, when the Independent Commission's determination on liability is finally made public, we're reliably led to believe that the sanctions hearing will follow (if City are found liable for any breach). However, it would be entirely expected for either or both parties to appeal, depending on what's decided in terms of liability and sanctions.

As noted above, it won't be anything like as long as the proceedings involving the Independent Commission. It will still probably take months, though.
Click to expand...

Does the Arbitration Act cover a section W disciplinary panel? Or does that only come in if the case gets as far as a Section X tribunal?
 
Silva Citizen said:
Is it possible that both parties have the result and the appeal (from whoever lost) is being heard in secrecy, Then when the verdict is announced it will be final and draw a line.
Click to expand...
No. Or if it is it will be the first time in world legal history it has happened so still no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top