PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

gordondaviesmoustache said:
Assuming this hearing is subject to the Arbitration Act 1996, then under section 43, and with the agreement of the tribunal City can apply (I think to the High Court) for a witness summons but there would have to be a compelling and specific evidential purpose for that application to be granted, not simply on the basis of a fishing expedition. It would have to be in the interests of justice to compel someone to attend, presumably against their will.

So highly unlikely I would say.
Click to expand...
I agree with this also. Almost no chance - and you don't want an adverse witness where you have no idea what he/she will say anyway.
 
mancboy said:
I would think seeing as he mumbled and fumbled his way through the government enquiry it would be remiss not to call him.
Click to expand...

Call him and ask him about the process to appoint him to the role? Cross examine him on where the investigation was when he joined, and why he decided to proceed, question him on the timing of the charges, the errors in the original charges, and then get stuck into his emails to establish who is influencing him and pulling his strings…. Box office stuff.
 
slbsn said:
I agree. The only other issue I think the PL witnesses may be important is if the PL deny knowledge of certain matters at the time. That is likely to be clear in the documents but if not, say, City's witness say they were discussed orally and the PL says they have no record of such a discussion, then some witness cross examination may be necessary. I'd say quite difficult to see how Masters has any meaningful evidence at all on the substantive matters. So PL witnesses (aside from expert witnesses) are largely a red herring.

NB: Masters did give a witness statement for Everton on the points recommendation from the PL's standpoint so that may be relevant but it is unlikely a) for this initial IC b) something for cross examination - it is more a submission by the PL.
Click to expand...

May be misremembering, but did you say Masters appeared before the APT tribunal? If so, was he a City witness or a PL witness?
 
slbsn said:
In fairness, the sponsorship allegations, if all proved, are quite material and serious albeit quite a while ago.
Click to expand...
Seems their allegations were at a time when the current business plan was developing and needed investment.

Now the BP has shown its superiority in all aspects of the City business the PL are left with their failure to stop it in its early stages. Can't be their fault their rule changes didn't work so it must be hidden somewhere and not showing in the published accounts.
 
Milesvk said:
Seeing some people asking if city's evidence at the beginning is so strong could charges be dropped.
Different scenario but hopefully might produce some optimism.
I was in crown court on a 2 week trial (as the accused) on day 1, after the jury was sworn in, the prosecution presented its case against me and others. The judge called up the prosecution barrister and directly asked him what the case was against me. The barrister replayed a video of my actions, the judge pulled a de-niro type face saying 'really'.
I still had to go through all the process, cross examination and everything else.
The judge stated in his closing speech to the jury to basically not to find me guilty. The jury found me not guilty.
Think the point I'm making is even if it's a slam dunk for city on day one, I imagine the whole process will have to be completed and concluded.
Click to expand...

How did your exposed penis look on the footage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.