PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Coatigan]

I agree, but the best qualified opinion on here is from Projectriver and that is his position.

And it is most welcome. Doesn't mean it is right. I personally question that particular part of his claim, purely because it just doesn't make sense. And also because there are articles out there that suggest otherwise, like the recent Times one for example. I am broadly open to the claim being right of course, just not taking it entirely for granted.

 

[petrusha]

[That recourse to law is on very narrow grounds, basically irregularity in the process] is what I don't understand.

Consider this. You are a member of a golf club. You are sleeping with the Chairman's wife. You make a minor infraction of the club's rules, but the Chairman puts you through a process, they find you broke the club's rules and fine you a million pounds.

What the legal experts on here seem to be saying is that, as long as the process was followed properly, you are fucked. No matter what evidence you have against the charge, no matter if the punishment is disproportionate, no matter who is judge and jury. As a legal "layman", I find it hard to believe that that really is the situation.

It's true that our only opportunity to have recourse to the court system lies under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which provides for the possibility of a challenge "on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award" (see section 68(1)).

The lawyers on here have generally opined that this is extremely unlikely because it's very rare in practice and tends to involve fairly egregious conduct on the part of an arbitral body. To confer a right on a party to arbitration proceedings to appeal to the civil court system against a ruling other than in fairly exceptional circumstances would be inimical to the whole essence of arbitration, which is to avoid the courts.

However, it's worth noting that, under section 68(2)(a) of the 1996 Act, a "failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33" of the Act is a "serious irregularity" if it will "cause substantial injustice to the applicant".

Section 33 of the 1996 Act imposes a general duty on a tribunal to "act fairly and impartially as between the parties, giving each party a reasonable opportunity of putting his case and dealing with that of his opponent" (see section 33(1)(a)).

Under section 33(2), a tribunal must "comply with that general duty in conducting the arbitral proceedings, in its decisions on matters of procedure and evidence and in the exercise of all other powers conferred on it".

So there is legal protection for us in that. It would take exceptional circumstances for it to become relevant in our case, but it's not true to say that any decision, whatever the available evidence for it, would be fine as long as there's no actual procedural impropriety.

If a tribunal handed down an award that could be demonstrated to a court to be a decision that could not have been taken by a reasonable tribunal acting fairly based on the evidence presented, the court would uphold an appeal. It's a high bar and if the members of the panel act professionally it shouldn't apply, but you never know.

The PL's panel will be well aware that if they give us any scope to bring into play the possibility of an appeal under section 68, we'll be all over it. That's something that will hopefully keep them honest (or at least relatively so).

 

[Keeper!]

Simon Jordan likes this post

Who?

 

[SilverFox2]

This is what I don't understand.

Consider this. You are a member of a golf club. You are sleeping with the Chairman's wife. You make a minor infraction of the club's rules, but the Chairman puts you through a process, they find you broke the club's rules and fine you a million pounds.

What the legal experts on here seem to be saying is that, as long as the process was followed properly, you are fucked. No matter what evidence you have against the charge, no matter if the punishment is disproportionate, no matter who is judge and jury. As a legal "layman", I find it hard to believe that that really is the situation.

Fully agree as probably so would our legal experts.
Until changed the law as it stands is the one that matters.

Not sure about the PL court though but any differences will no doubt be further reasons for the whole process to have Government Appeal in place.

 

[KS55]

It's true that our only opportunity to have recourse to the court system lies under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which provides for the possibility of a challenge "on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award" (see section 68(1)).

The lawyers on here have generally opined that this is extremely unlikely because it's very rare in practice and tends to involve fairly egregious conduct on the part of an arbitral body. To confer a right on a party to arbitration proceedings to appeal to the civil court system against a ruling other than in fairly exceptional circumstances would be inimical to the whole essence of arbitration, which is to avoid the courts.

However, it's worth noting that, under section 68(2)(a) of the 1996 Act, a "failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33" of the Act is a "serious irregularity" if it will "cause substantial injustice to the applicant".

Section 33 of the 1996 Act imposes a general duty on a tribunal to "act fairly and impartially as between the parties, giving each party a reasonable opportunity of putting his case and dealing with that of his opponent" (see section 33(1)(a)).

Under section 33(2), a tribunal must "comply with that general duty in conducting the arbitral proceedings, in its decisions on matters of procedure and evidence and in the exercise of all other powers conferred on it".

So there is legal protection for us in that. It would take exceptional circumstances for it to become relevant in our case, but it's not true to say that any decision, whatever the available evidence for it, would be fine as long as there's no actual procedural impropriety.

If a tribunal handed down an award that could be demonstrated to a court to be a decision that could not have been taken by a reasonable tribunal acting fairly based on the evidence presented, the court would uphold an appeal. It's a high bar and if the members of the panel act professionally it shouldn't apply, but you never know.

The PL's panel will be well aware that if they give us any scope to bring into play the possibility of an appeal under section 68, we'll be all over it. That's something that will hopefully keep them honest (or at least relatively so).

Thanks, Petrusha, very clear.
The chairman will be very aware of this but the other members will not be lawyers so it is up to the chair to keep them within bounds.

 

[Coatigan]

It's true that our only opportunity to have recourse to the court system lies under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which provides for the possibility of a challenge "on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award" (see section 68(1)).

The lawyers on here have generally opined that this is extremely unlikely because it's very rare in practice and tends to involve fairly egregious conduct on the part of an arbitral body. To confer a right on a party to arbitration proceedings to appeal to the civil court system against a ruling other than in fairly exceptional circumstances would be inimical to the whole essence of arbitration, which is to avoid the courts.

However, it's worth noting that, under section 68(2)(a) of the 1996 Act, a "failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33" of the Act is a "serious irregularity" if it will "cause substantial injustice to the applicant".

Section 33 of the 1996 Act imposes a general duty on a tribunal to "act fairly and impartially as between the parties, giving each party a reasonable opportunity of putting his case and dealing with that of his opponent" (see section 33(1)(a)).

Under section 33(2), a tribunal must "comply with that general duty in conducting the arbitral proceedings, in its decisions on matters of procedure and evidence and in the exercise of all other powers conferred on it".

So there is legal protection for us in that. It would take exceptional circumstances for it to become relevant in our case, but it's not true to say that any decision, whatever the available evidence for it, would be fine as long as there's no actual procedural impropriety.

If a tribunal handed down an award that could be demonstrated to a court to be a decision that could not have been taken by a reasonable tribunal acting fairly based on the evidence presented, the court would uphold an appeal. It's a high bar and if the members of the panel act professionally it shouldn't apply, but you never know.

The PL's panel will be well aware that if they give us any scope to bring into play the possibility of an appeal under section 68, we'll be all over it. That's something that will hopefully keep them honest (or at least relatively so).

So in summary, there IS a possibility of challenging any outcome, and/or mechamism to protect against an outcome that takes the piss. That makes sense.

 

[petrusha]

So in summary, there IS a possibility of challenging any outcome, and/or mechamism to protect against an outcome that takes the piss. That makes sense.

Yes, the idea is basically that you don't get a right of appeal to the courts if the decision is a bit contentious or marginal or you don't like it or think you weren't treated well but the tribunal has basically acted professionally. But if you get properly fucked over and are able to justify that to a court, protection is there.

The latter is very rare as generally tribunals covered by the Act comprise professional people who take their duties seriously. But there does seem to be a sense in football that those with regulatory power can act as they wish without being bound by legal principles that apply in other industries, so I suppose you never know.

 

[Iassel]

With Liverpool and Tottenham now locked outside the top 4 for a decade without massive investment, expect the case to die away pretty quickly….

Arsenal are already back in ‘the club’ and the Qataris will be desperate to avoid harder rules on how much money they can plow in.

As said several months back, the charges were to satisfy the old guard, but circumstance has led to the charges they wanted shooting off their own feet, as those most desperate to limit spending are now most desperate to be able to spend.

 

[Ric]

It's true that our only opportunity to have recourse to the court system lies under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which provides for the possibility of a challenge "on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award" (see section 68(1)).

The lawyers on here have generally opined that this is extremely unlikely because it's very rare in practice and tends to involve fairly egregious conduct on the part of an arbitral body. To confer a right on a party to arbitration proceedings to appeal to the civil court system against a ruling other than in fairly exceptional circumstances would be inimical to the whole essence of arbitration, which is to avoid the courts.

However, it's worth noting that, under section 68(2)(a) of the 1996 Act, a "failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33" of the Act is a "serious irregularity" if it will "cause substantial injustice to the applicant".

Section 33 of the 1996 Act imposes a general duty on a tribunal to "act fairly and impartially as between the parties, giving each party a reasonable opportunity of putting his case and dealing with that of his opponent" (see section 33(1)(a)).

Under section 33(2), a tribunal must "comply with that general duty in conducting the arbitral proceedings, in its decisions on matters of procedure and evidence and in the exercise of all other powers conferred on it".

So there is legal protection for us in that. It would take exceptional circumstances for it to become relevant in our case, but it's not true to say that any decision, whatever the available evidence for it, would be fine as long as there's no actual procedural impropriety.

If a tribunal handed down an award that could be demonstrated to a court to be a decision that could not have been taken by a reasonable tribunal acting fairly based on the evidence presented, the court would uphold an appeal. It's a high bar and if the members of the panel act professionally it shouldn't apply, but you never know.

The PL's panel will be well aware that if they give us any scope to bring into play the possibility of an appeal under section 68, we'll be all over it. That's something that will hopefully keep them honest (or at least relatively so).

Thanks for explaining that clearly. It's reassuring to hear that they couldn't just impose some arbitrary penalty (say relegation to League Two) and that we'd just have to accept it with no legal recourse whatsoever.

 

[Ric]

With Liverpool and Tottenham now locked outside the top 4 for a decade without massive investment

Think you're writing off Liverpool, in particular, a little prematurely there.