No. It is common practice in civil cases, if you win a civil dispute, either the judge will also apply that they have to do so, or you can go to court again to cover the costs.I'm no lawyer but that sounds highly illegal?
No. It is common practice in civil cases, if you win a civil dispute, either the judge will also apply that they have to do so, or you can go to court again to cover the costs.I'm no lawyer but that sounds highly illegal?
This is interesting:
"Sources have told Football Insider the Premier League could now propose new rules are brought in [after the 115 case] to ensure the majority of its legal fees are paid for by a club if they are proven to have committed a financial breach."
Maybe they could better put themselves in a position that they don't have to keep charging clubs with "financial" offences .....
"Sources have told Football Insider...".This is interesting:
"Sources have told Football Insider the Premier League could now propose new rules are brought in [after the 115 case] to ensure the majority of its legal fees are paid for by a club if they are proven to have committed a financial breach."
Maybe they could better put themselves in a position that they don't have to keep charging clubs with "financial" offences .....
But that's the court adjudging costs, surely you can't bake into the rules that if you breach them, then you have to pay all costs?No. It is common practice in civil cases, if you win a civil dispute, either the judge will also apply that they have to do so, or you can go to court again to cover the costs.
Aren’t those rules already there, the loser picks up the majority of the costs?
I'm no lawyer but that sounds highly illegal?
...and if it's true...and they can get a majority to vote for itIt sounds highly unnecessary to this non-lawyer but I guess it's only a problem if they try to push it too far?
View attachment 138231
It's very technical how they decide legal outcomes.
It's above the levels of you and I, unfortunately.