Spot on - allows PL to tread that fine line between doing nothing to city but at the same time saying they tried their best to shaft us. I suspect the game being played by American owned clubs here is to hope city get shafted or if not to use that as a pretext to claim the moral high ground while they flounce off to form ESLI suspect it's to do with the fact that they know they're on thin ice legally and we'll contest the case on limitation grounds, which will allow the media to reprise the "they only got off on a technicality" schtick.
Had a mate who got married on 29th February. Great shout tbf!If the date of issue of claim is 29th Feb, could you count back 24 years?
Exactly, hence why the PL has spent 5 years trying to trump up charges to fit us up with.It's the hacked emails that kicked all this off nothing else
It's actually the severity of the case that counts. If it's Bernie Madoff level of fraud & concealment or serial murders which would be tried in the Crown Court, then there's no statute of limitations.Limitation period. And I’m pretty sure it does, but from the date of discovery, not the date of the alleged fraud/concealment.
I think UK Law states it's from the date of the offence. On that basis alone, I've no idea where the PL's going with this, as it has no basis in law.CAS's view (which admittedly involves Swiss Law) was that the limitation period was based on the date the case was referred to the Adjudicatory Panel, which is basically the date on which the charges were officially laid.
The PL equivalent will presumably be the date the case was passed to the Independent Panel, which was February 2023. That means any contracts or transactions in the 2016/17 financial year and subsequent years.
I was talking about civil proceedings not criminal.It's actually the severity of the case that counts. If it's Bernie Madoff level of fraud & concealment or serial murders which would be tried in the Crown Court, then there's no statute of limitations.
If it's a magistrates job, then the limitation is 6 months. If it's to do with debt, contracts etc, then it's 6 years.
Having looked deeply into this, I've no idea where the PL are going with this, especially from a statute of limitation angle.
If what we're accused of is that serious, they're legally bound to call in the law. The fact they haven't speaks volumes.
I thought it applied from the moment they find out about the said fraud?Pretty sure this is incorrect. If fraud/concealment is proved then the statute of limitations doesn't apply.
Agreed. And it's at the discretion of the court to extend the mamdatory 6 month limitation period to two years if they see fit, hence why this is all so odd. This is for minor criminal cases from the date of the offence.I was talking about civil proceedings not criminal.
You are correct, there is no limitation period (as such) for either way or indictable only criminal offences, but you are wrong about summary only offences, as many regulatory offences (within the legislation that deals with them) increase the six month time limit provided in section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 - for up to two years for some offences.
I was talking about civil proceedings not criminal.
You are correct, there is no limitation period (as such) for either way or indictable only criminal offences, but you are wrong about summary only offences, as many regulatory offences (within the legislation that deals with them) increase the six month time limit provided in section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 - for up to two years for some offences.
Or why Liverpool hacking our scouting database is time barred.Obviously I bow to your expertise in this field! Makes you wonder why the PL are charging us with offences dating back to 2009/10 in that case.