StillBluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2020
- Messages
- 2,144
- Team supported
- City
I remember in the court of small claims someone whose contract was terminated because he had been off work for a long time had, his employers claimed, been paid too much as severance pay. He was told by the magistrate that the onus of proof was not upon him but on his ex-employers to prove an over payment. EVEN IF HE TOOK NO PART IN THE PROCEEDINGS he would win the case if his employer could not prove this. His employer claimed they had confirmed agreement to a much lower sum than that paid in a letter sent to him. He believed he had only received what he had agreed over the 'phone. His sole contribution was to say he had not received this letter. As the employer had no proof of delivery THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES was that he had not received the letter and he did not have to repay a penny There are times when silence is golden and City know when as well as anyone.How can you be annoyed at the club for not defending this more publicly? If you are facing charges like City are, you simply do not say much before the case has concluded.
City are behaving in exactly the right way. I am sure that they have been very careful to keep their powder dry and hopefully they will deliver to the commission the irrefutable evidence they have said they have.