Lord Pannick to represent City / Pannick's OJ-style Summation

[Pam]

Am I being a bit naiive here? As it is an independent (suppposedly) commission rather than a court, I understand the desire to have a legally qualified person to present on your behalf, but the burden of proof will be different won't it? I understand it is not a case of them proving us guilty, its a matter of us provising we aren't guilty.... The dice are definitely loaded in the PL's favour.

Surely the burden of proof is always on the accuser

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Surely the burden of proof is always on the accuser

Not always. There are exceptions. Negligent misrepresentation being one that springs to mind. But in this instance the burden will rest with the PL, although how rigidly that test is genuinely applied will, as ever, depend on the intellectual honesty of the tribunal.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Not always. There are exceptions. Negligent misrepresentation being one that springs to mind. But in this instance the burden will rest with the PL, although how rigidly that test is genuinely applied will, as ever, depend on the intellectual honesty of the tribunal.

Takes me back - always struggled with that. Don't know why now.

 

[Corky]

Not always. There are exceptions. Negligent misrepresentation being one that springs to mind. But in this instance the burden will rest with the PL, although how rigidly that test is genuinely applied will, as ever, depend on the intellectual honesty of the tribunal.

Defamation law in England is an example

 

[City Man]

On a serious note.

Imagine earning £80,000 a day for clever talking.(I appreciate it isn’t as simple as that)

Regrdless of Pannick being on £80,000 a day, if he and his legal team win the case, I’ll buy everyone one of them a beer, if they ever come to the Etihad.

Your money's safe.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Defamation law in England is an example

*** Sound of Daniel Levy scribbling down notes ****

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Not always. There are exceptions. Negligent misrepresentation being one that springs to mind. But in this instance the burden will rest with the PL, although how rigidly that test is genuinely applied will, as ever, depend on the intellectual honesty of the tribunal.

Will the tribunal even be applying the law of the land or just the PL rulebook?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Will the tribunal even be applying the law of the land or just the PL rulebook?

The laws of natural justice have to apply or the decision can surely be subject to a challenge to the High Court at the very least for breach of contract - and unless there is a statutory basis for departing from it, the default position is that the burden always rests with the legal person who is asserting something against another legal person. Which perfectly stands to reason.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

The laws of natural justice have to apply or the decision can surely be subject to a challenge to the High Court at the very least for breach of contract - and unless there is a statutory basis for departing from it, the default position is that the burden always rests with the legal person who is asserting something against another legal person. Which perfectly stands to reason.

Yes, but will we have to take an initial shafting off the tribunal? - things like the 'non cooperation ' accusations are surely pretty subjective unless we've totally withheld the books?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Yes, but will we have to take an initial shafting off the tribunal?

I don’t think anyone can answer that with any degree of certainty at this stage.