FOR THE ABOVE REASONS WE, SIR NIGEL TEARE, CHRISTOPHER VAJDA KC AND LORD DYSON HEREBY AWARD AND DECLARE:
(i) that the APT Rules are unlawful
(ii) that the Amended APT Rules are unlawful
(iii) that APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules are unlawful
(iv) that the PL’s decision with regard to the EAG Transaction was reached in a procedurally unfair manner and must be set aside
(v) that the PL’s decision with regard to the FAB Transaction was reached in a procedurally unfair manner and must be set aside
(vi) that in making its decision with regard to the FAB Transaction there was an unreasonable delay
(vii) that in making its decision with regard to the EP Transaction there was an unreasonable delay
I'm certainly no expert on financial law but if I'm reading this correct:
- APT rules and the Amended APT rules are unlawful.
- The decision to block a couple of sponsorship was unfair and must be set aside.
PL on the other hand is proved to on several points acted unlawful, unfair and unreasonable.
Thats the verdict.
People can have different views on how to interpret this verdict, but I fail to see how this can be seen as anything but a monumental failure for PL. They are, in the eyes of the public, suppose to be the lawful, fair and reasonable governing body for their members and a multi billion pound industry. This verdict ruled that they have in fact acted in the exact opposite way. They might try to spin it as "from a legal point of view, we won on several points", but the point is that the public and their members should expect them to act lawful, fair and reasonable on ALL occasions. If a police officer is being accused of 27 points of corruption, and "only" convicted of 7, he is still corrupt. Even if he, if he had the PL/Pranja/MagicHats mindset, probably would see it as a win and some sort of twisted vindication not being convicted of all of them.