Firm suing Rangers deny attempting to intimidate witnesses

BlueMeanie

Well-Known Member
A lot of money to pay even when reduced.

Lawyers acting for a firm suing Rangers following a shelved plan for an Ibrox disaster memorial wall and garden today today denied attempting to intimidate witnesses after a letter was sent to former club captain John Greig.

English-based firm Memorial Walls has raised a damages claim against Rangers FC after it pulled out of the proposed venture.

Gavin MacColl QC, for the firm, told the Court of Session in Edinburgh that it was a breach of contract case but the breach was admitted, with outstanding issues of causation and the level of damages remaining.
Mr MacColl told judge Lord Bannatyne that there will be an amendment brought to reduce the sum sued for in the claim.
Rangers senior counsel Kenny McBrearty QC welcomed the move and said he anticipated it would be cut "presumably to somewhere in the region of just over a million".
But Mr McBrearty said there was an issue he was asked to raise with the court and told the judge that it could be seen from the defences in the action that an important matter related to the question of "the wider Rangers community" who were consulted.
He said the firm wanted to know who else was consulted and expressed a view about the proposed venture.

Mr McBrearty said the only individual named in the defences was John Greig and solicitors acting for Memorial Walls wrote to him indicating a potential claim for inducing breach of contract. The senior counsel said it had given rise to "considerable concern" on the part of Rangers.
He said it was difficult to see how Memorial Walls, on the facts known to them, could set out a case a gainst Mr Greig.

Mr McBrearty said on the facts set out in the defences all that was said was that he was consulted after the contract was entered into and nothing was said that he knew or was made aware of the contract or anything of that nature.
The senior counsel said: "It is very difficult to see how a 76-year-old man who was captain of Rangers at the time of the Ibrox disaster and expressed honestly held opinion could be said to be inducing a breach of contract."
He said the view reached on his side was that it was difficult to see it as "anything other than an attempt to intimidate a witness".
Mr MacColl said he rejected the suggestion that solicitors instructing him had sought to act in a professionally inappropriate way and that there has been any attempt to intimidate witnesses.
He told the court: "The suggestion that there was an attempt to intimidate witnesses here is simply unfounded."
He said there was no suggestion of intimidation of a witness or "in any way, shape or form" placing inappropriate pressure.
Lord Bannatyne said he had not seen the precise terms of the letter nor was he asked to do anything at this point, but would have it noted in the minute of proceedings.
The judge said he would allow a period for adjustment of the pleadings and have a procedural hearing fixed in the action.
The planned venture had originally included a memorial wall and garden to honour victims of the Ibrox disaster in which 66 fans during an Old Firm game in 1971.
 
I just quickly scanned that article, does it suggest we will settle this for just over a million quid?? Surely not!
 
I just quickly scanned that article, does it suggest we will settle this for just over a million quid?? Surely not!

Rangers senior counsel Kenny McBrearty QC welcomed the move and said he anticipated it would be cut "presumably to somewhere in the region of just over a million".
 
Just glimpsed a thread earlier ridiculing someone for asking questions at the GM. Never learn.
Questions need to be asked.

I commend the board, without them our club wouldn’t be here today. But that doesn’t make them exempt from criticism, we should be building momentum going into the new season, not participating in court cases every 2nd week.

Completed amatuer hour from the board.
 
So we’re likely going to need to pay out over £1m for absolutely nothing in return?

Absolutely shambolic in all honesty

Our board deserve praise for a number of things they’ve done but they haven’t half cost us some needless money too with this and the arsed up renegotiated contract with SD.

Ridiculous situation this is
 
Also, how much was this suppose to cost if they’re claiming they’re a million poorer off because we pulled out? Seems it’ll be settled for way way less.
 
It's about time we started employing people who actually have a clue. Court cases seem to be the norm with us now.
 
I just quickly scanned that article, does it suggest we will settle this for just over a million quid?? Surely not!
If we were going to settle for just over a million, it would be settled by now, you offer anyone over a million for nothing they would bite your hand off. It may just have been a wee bit of sarcasm from our lawyer.
No one is going to know the full facts until this finally gets to a hearing, everything up to now is just guess work.
 
I've read previously we were prepared to pay this company for work they done. It was the amount we disputed and they decided to start court action.
 
Back
Top