PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

slbsn said:
You need to separate the impressions and conclusions of the panel in their heads and between themselves from the decision and formal written conclusions. The decision will 100% be reserved (ie not handed down at the end of the hearing) and the panel will not want to give the impression they have made any decision until all of the evidence has been heard.

But of course, an impression and direction of travel will build through the hearing.
Click to expand...
There’s a distinction between the decision that the panel members will individually arrive at in their heads and the joint determination and reasons, which will unquestionably be reserved, but I’d be amazed if they didn’t all know their individual definitive positions at the conclusion of the case, and most likely considerably in advance of that.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
There’s a distinction between the decision that the panel members will individually arrive at in their heads and the joint determination and reasons, which will unquestionably be reserved, but I’d be amazed if they didn’t all know their individual definitive positions at the conclusion of the case, and most likely considerably in advance of that.
Click to expand...

Jesus. Can you two stop arguing? It's making me crazy :)
 
slbsn said:
You need to separate the impressions and conclusions of the panel in their heads and between themselves from the decision and formal written conclusions. The decision will 100% be reserved (ie not handed down at the end of the hearing) and the panel will not want to give the impression they have made any decision until all of the evidence has been heard.

But of course, an impression and direction of travel will build through the hearing.
Click to expand...

They won’t want to give any impression but they’ll definitely have made their minds up.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
There’s a distinction between the decision that the panel members will individually arrive at in their heads and the joint determination and reasons, which will unquestionably be reserved, but I’d be amazed if they didn’t all know their individual definitive positions at the conclusion of the case, and most likely considerably in advance of that.
Click to expand...

So, a question for our legal friends. Let's say the APT judgment was issued three months after the hearing finished. How much of that time would be taken up with deliberations between the arbitrators and how much, after they had agreed their conclusions, with drafting, reviewing and redrafting (where necessary) the reasons?
 
halfcenturyup said:
So, a question for our legal friends. Let's say the APT judgment was issued three months after the hearing finished. How much of that time would be taken up with deliberations between the arbitrators and how much, after they had agreed their conclusions, with drafting, reviewing and redrafting (where necessary) the reasons?
Click to expand...
This is a guess, but it’s not unheard of for the parties to have some input into the wording of a judicial determination, once it’s been arrived at, and my guess is that would be more likely to be permissible in this setting than many others.

If any of the limitation points got home I’d be pushing for the wording on that to expressly provide that this isn’t a ‘technicality’ but a core term of the agreement between the parties (I may have mentioned this once or twice before!).
 
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
There’s a distinction between the decision that the panel members will individually arrive at in their heads and the joint determination and reasons, which will unquestionably be reserved, but I’d be amazed if they didn’t all know their individual definitive positions at the conclusion of the case, and most likely considerably in advance of that.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. I don't think it is impossible that a 3 person panel on a 10-12 week trial with a fair bit of complexity outside of their individual skillsets could need some time to deliberate and debate the weight of some of the evidence. And this also assumes a unanimity of view which is uncertain. Either way the initial point is clear - no decision will be handed down in the room
 
slbsn said:
Maybe, maybe not. I don't think it is impossible that a 3 person panel on a 10-12 week trial with a fair bit of complexity outside of their individual skillsets could need some time to deliberate and debate the weight of some of the evidence. And this also assumes a unanimity of view which is uncertain. Either way the initial point is clear - no decision will be handed down in the room
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s absolutely fair comment. Certainly not impossible and arguably more likely than that. It’s certainly possible, but not likely imo and fwiw.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
This is a guess, but it’s not unheard of for the parties to have some input into the wording of a judicial determination, once it’s been arrived at, and my guess is that would be more likely to be permissible in this setting than many others.

If any of the limitation points got home I’d be pushing for the wording on that to expressly provide that this isn’t a ‘technicality’ but a core term of the agreement between her parties (I may have mentioned this once or twice before!).
Click to expand...

On the facts of the case, presumably?

I seem to remember UEFA and City got a copy of the CAS award, presumably redacted for the actual conclusions, the week before publication?

Maybe I am misremembering, but I always imagined that was why Cheeseman was able to judge the feeling in the club on the Friday before the award was published. A party can presumably get an idea of the way it has gone from how the facts (amount of detail, order of the reasoning and the like) are described?

Maybe this is the same....
 
halfcenturyup said:
On the facts of the case, presumably?

I seem to remember UEFA and City got a copy of the CAS award, presumably redacted for the actual conclusions, the week before publication?

Maybe I am misremembering, but I always imagined that was why Cheeseman was able to judge the feeling in the club on the Friday before the award was published. A party can presumably get an idea of the way it has gone from how the facts (amount of detail, order of the reasoning and the like) are described?

Maybe this is the same....
Click to expand...
It could be on a point of law especially if the parties have an agreed position on the interpretation of a legal principle or some relevant case law.

Unlikely to be on a finding of fact as that is a matter entirely for the tribunal based on the evidence that has been presented to them and any questions around live evidence can be resolved by playing back the testimony which they will unquestionably be able to do.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It could be on a point of law especially if the parties have an agreed position on the interpretation of a legal principle or some relevant case law.

Unlikely to be on a finding of fact as that is a matter entirely for the tribunal based on the evidence that has been presented to them and any questions around live evidence can be resolved by playing back the testimony which they will unquestionably be able to do.
Click to expand...
It's normal in civil cases for embargoed judgments to be sent to the parties before public release. They get an opportunity to make corrections (only minor ones - typos, incorrect references and the like) and also a small window of time to prepare press lines and the like. That can be a very small window though. The last embargoed judgment where I was on the embargo list was a Court of Appeal case, and I think they only gave us 24 hours notice before it was publicly handed down!

So I'd imagine this is what happened at CAS. City and UEFA will have had draft versions of the full judgment.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
This is a guess, but it’s not unheard of for the parties to have some input into the wording of a judicial determination, once it’s been arrived at, and my guess is that would be more likely to be permissible in this setting than many others.

If any of the limitation points got home I’d be pushing for the wording on that to expressly provide that this isn’t a ‘technicality’ but a core term of the agreement between the parties (I may have mentioned this once or twice before!).
Click to expand...
If my memory serves me in the Everton IC both parties were given a copy of the draft written reasons and both wanted certain passages to be re worded but the IC stuck with the original draft
 
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