Search results

Void in English law means never existed. https://www.vocabulaw.co.uk/terms/void/

I'm having a go at answering the question, "Why do City say the Rules are void?" Because that's what the law says. If the Rules are unlawful (for whatever reason) they are prohibited rules and any agreement, or decision of an association, including the prohibited Rules is thus void...

See my post yesterday

Steady on, that's almost justifying the Rags' deal with Chrysler!

Even that minimises the problem for the PL. The rules are currently unlawful, therefore, say City, void, as in never existed. (See the effect of the Supreme Court saying Johnson's proroguing Parliament was unlawful meant the session continued.) Can the PL now come up with rules that get the...

And the phrase "red cartel" is now in everyone's head. Big win. Will enough clubs support any new rules if the first question is, "Would we spend millions defending in court these rules designed to help the red cartel?"?

Not just the amendments. The rules themselves are unlawful.

Does he explain why City think the APT rules are now void?

I did go back. This bit of the article is simply wrong: "Secondly, it found that a number of changes made to the APT rules in February were in breach of competition law. These changes were highly technical. In essence, amendments in the rules would make it more difficult for a club to meet the...

I can't be bothered going back to the article. But does it say "The Tribunal said that both the original rules and the amended rules are unlawful"? (Or anything that clear?)

It's not exactly a forensic analysis, is it? City said this, the PL said that.

Thanks. Do we assume that's the whole of the City letter quoted?

Is that the Corrupt Bullshit Artist that unlawfully passed a planning consent for a Tory donor? Or the Corrupt Bullshit Artist that hacked an opposition MP's computer?

Did someone post the City letter to clubs? I can't find it. The one that says "give us a call if you want it explaining..."

The article didn't make that connection. It was couched as "City argued the rules were unlawful" but "The PL disagreed". The Tribunal say the Rules are unlawful. As an article purporting to explain that, it failed.

Because it says "The tribunal found these changes constituted a breach of competition law" but does not say that that is why the Tribunal said the Rules are unlawful.

Does this explain why all the Rules are void? The judgment says the Rules and the Amended Rules are "in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998" Section 2 of the Act: Agreements etc. preventing, restricting or distorting competition. (1)Subject to section 3, agreements between...

But then wouldn't it have said, "Rule number X is unlawful"? No matter whether it's an easy fix or not, as it stands the Rules are unlawful (so City say they are all null and void until the unfair bits are fixed). That's my understanding / best guess.

Is it? How do City claim the judgement mean the Rules are null and void if "the Rules are unlawful" just means the individual Rules on which the Panel said City succeeded. The phraseology "for no other reason" doesn't on the face of it seem to qualify the ruling that the Rules (as a whole) are...

Not reading the last hundred posts, but I was trying to work out why City say the Rules are null and void (not a phrase in the judgment). The overall conclusions (592-602) list the challenges where City succeeded and those ("all others") that failed, which sounds like they just have to tinker...