bearspakora
Well-Known Member
The SFA will appoint Lord Carloway to rule on Hearts.
Hearts & Partick Thistle vs SPFL Starts Today.
- Thread starter CR5
- Start date
The SFA will appoint Lord Carloway to rule on Hearts.
Bluechip
Well-Known Member
Old common sense Carloway.
jweebear
Well-Known Member
Certainly not today, as it a hearing for the court of Session to decide if the petitions has the merits to go forward to a full hearing. Or the Judge decides its a sole football matter for SPFL/SFA abritation. Hopefully it goes forward to a full Cos judgement
BlueNoseBlueblood
Well-Known Member
Valley Bluenose
RTV? Completed it mate!
Far easier, and potentially cheaper, to just keep an eye on Jambos Kickback for a running commentary.
There's unlikely to be anything 'juicy' at this hearing anyway. Its just to decide who gets to adjudicate,
Disco Deejay
Well-Known Member
You can comment on what you hear them discussing in open Court. Hence the reason there were updates on here yesterday.
Disco Deejay
Well-Known Member
Public Access to Virtual Court Hearings
You are applying to access a court hearing which is being held in a virtual courtroom.
Please read the following carefully - it is important that you read and understand.
You will be able to listen to proceedings but will not see the participants.
Although you are not physically attending court, if you dial in to these proceedings you are subject to the same rules as if you are present in Court. Anyone failing to obey or respect the authority of the Court may be subject to Contempt of Court proceedings. In particular, those accessing a hearing:
· must not record or store the proceedings
· must not broadcast the proceedings
· must not, during the course of a hearing, comment on the proceedings using live texted based communications (such as Twitter).
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service retain the copyright of live audio recordings of Court proceedings. Although you are welcome to listen to the proceedings, the re-use, capture, re-editing or redistribution of the material in any form is not permitted. You should be aware that any such use could attract liability for breach of copyright or defamation, in addition to the possibility of contempt of court proceedings.
In a physical court, access is provided on a first come first served basis. Although a significantly larger number of people can be accommodated through remote access, the hearing will close if audio capacity is reached.
Each individual accessing the case should be personally aware of the legal restrictions of use and for this reason the meeting code should not be shared.
Having read this information carefully and agreeing to the conditions, please follow the instructions below to dial-in to the hearing.
(United Kingdom Toll) Dial +44-20-7660-8149.
Case Access code: Enter the code detailed in the list below. No listed codes means no scheduled virtual hearing.
When prompted press # to join.
Please note this call may incur a cost and you should check with your phone provider.
Once connected the line will remain silent until the hearing begins and then the sound will activate automatically. As participant arrangements require to be put in place, the hearing may not start immediately and your patience is appreciated.
Court of Session Hearing Access
- Heart of Midlothian Plc and The Partick Thistle Football Club Limited for orders under Section 994 and 996 of the Companies Act 2006
Day: Thursday
Date: 02/07/2020
Time:14:00
Case access code: 1379262679
adastra
Well-Known Member
JKB have locked their thread on this topic, suspect due to concerns over the reporting restrictions.
Valley Bluenose
RTV? Completed it mate!
Go to the thread called 'SPFL Declare The League....'. Its all in there.
JD1872
Well-Known Member
just start with 0207 if you are in the Uk
This.
This.
Gibraltar Loyal
Well-Known Member
Some context would be good
mention of a need to go to court now that theres been an admission about the vote, a comment along the lines of theres a need to air this in a public setting. Also to me some really solid arguments against arbitration.
’Good guys’
Disco Deejay
Well-Known Member
Should be Hearts QC.
Thompson, guy arguing for Hearts and Thistle.
Bluechip
Well-Known Member
JKB an anagram of BJK.
Gibraltar Loyal
Well-Known Member
Cheers buddy. Glad the vote thing is out there. Get this to court and it could be very interesting
I believe it explicitly states social media cant be used to discuss proceedings mate. Of course im not sure if there will be some that will do so anyway.
we just stay on the line and it'll pick back up for us though
Does anyone else feel the judge was putting him on the spot about why arbitration shouldnt be used?
tsa57
Well-Known Member
Bugger I just hung up LOL But I was having trouble hearing most of it anyway.
Faure there’s not a team
Well-Known Member
very ironic!
It’s his job...
JD1872
Well-Known Member
I suppose that is the point, they try and press looking for weakness in their arguement.
I‘ve not heard anything so far that indicates the outcome although I have only heard bits and pieces
bearspakora
Well-Known Member
It'll likely come down to whether the Judge thinks this is a sporting or company issue. Let's hope its the latter and it goes to the Court of Session.
Last edited:
I hoped that was the case. It'll be interesting when we hear what kind of questions their QC get from him. re why they are so desperate for arbitration when we know fine well theres no amicable outcome this way.
tsa57
Well-Known Member
I got the impression the judge was asking why Arbitration was not an option for the SFA.
Is it back live yet. Don't want to call and listen to nothing
not yet, ill let you know
Heart of Midlothian/Partick Thistle v SPFL: Day 2
David Thomson QC – Hearts/Partick
The effect of Section of 2010 Arbitration Act – the language is clear, unambiguous and speaks for itself.
The court does not have a discretion to overlook this language. This seems to be at odds with the position in England and is based on different historical context.
Feels that the motion is ill-conceived and that the right to seek a sist depends on the applicant doing neither of the actions stated in 10(1d). To retain the right to seek a sist the respondents must not place substantive answers.
Thomson disputed Borland’s argument that they had to give a substantive answer. There is no basis that this could be considered to be a 2-sided dispute.
Motions for interim order argued daily without defences being lodged.
Therefore argues that the right to seek arbitration has been lost.
Any referral to arbitration would lead to valuable time being lost and more importantly the matters raised are of significant public interest and concern.
Reference is made to the extraordinary communication made to clubs last week telling them that it was necessary for them to support the SPFL in order to see the papers.
Lord Clark highlights that the email from Dundee was received at 4:48pm on the day on question. Does this help in speeding things up.?
DT refers to the debacle of the Dundee vote and the public interest in clearing this up.
We are entitled to discover the truth of what happened in that episode.
Lord Clark: Will evidence, afadavits and witness statements be required? Will witnesses be required to be led.
DT – the focus of the petitioners is likely to be on documentary evidence, but cant say for certain there would be no need for cross-examination… particularly the conversations between John Nelms and Neil Doncaster. There would also be an evidence requirement for any compensation demand.
Lord Clark: A requirement for evidence and limited cross-examination.
DT – Submission 2
No valid arbitration clause is in play. The starting point in any consideration should be the SPFL rules and these are not clear or definitive about arbitration
Reliance about SFA disciplinary rule 78 by Moynihan to suggest agreement to arbitration process does no such thing.
In the context of the present petition the arbitration provision of article 99 has not been incorporated.
Lord Clark – Is there a members agreement amongst clubs to resolve disputes via arbitration.
DT – Yes but only under article 99 and this petition is brought as shareholders within the SPFL Ltd. This why this is not a football dispute.
Temporary break in proceedings due to Broaband Issues – court not in session
David Thomson QC – Hearts/Partick
The effect of Section of 2010 Arbitration Act – the language is clear, unambiguous and speaks for itself.
The court does not have a discretion to overlook this language. This seems to be at odds with the position in England and is based on different historical context.
Feels that the motion is ill-conceived and that the right to seek a sist depends on the applicant doing neither of the actions stated in 10(1d). To retain the right to seek a sist the respondents must not place substantive answers.
Thomson disputed Borland’s argument that they had to give a substantive answer. There is no basis that this could be considered to be a 2-sided dispute.
Motions for interim order argued daily without defences being lodged.
Therefore argues that the right to seek arbitration has been lost.
Any referral to arbitration would lead to valuable time being lost and more importantly the matters raised are of significant public interest and concern.
Reference is made to the extraordinary communication made to clubs last week telling them that it was necessary for them to support the SPFL in order to see the papers.
Lord Clark highlights that the email from Dundee was received at 4:48pm on the day on question. Does this help in speeding things up.?
DT refers to the debacle of the Dundee vote and the public interest in clearing this up.
We are entitled to discover the truth of what happened in that episode.
Lord Clark: Will evidence, afadavits and witness statements be required? Will witnesses be required to be led.
DT – the focus of the petitioners is likely to be on documentary evidence, but cant say for certain there would be no need for cross-examination… particularly the conversations between John Nelms and Neil Doncaster. There would also be an evidence requirement for any compensation demand.
Lord Clark: A requirement for evidence and limited cross-examination.
DT – Submission 2
No valid arbitration clause is in play. The starting point in any consideration should be the SPFL rules and these are not clear or definitive about arbitration
Reliance about SFA disciplinary rule 78 by Moynihan to suggest agreement to arbitration process does no such thing.
In the context of the present petition the arbitration provision of article 99 has not been incorporated.
Lord Clark – Is there a members agreement amongst clubs to resolve disputes via arbitration.
DT – Yes but only under article 99 and this petition is brought as shareholders within the SPFL Ltd. This why this is not a football dispute.
Temporary break in proceedings due to Broaband Issues – court not in session
The Gon
Well-Known Member
Seems mildly encouraging that there's enough there to rule Arbitration out.
