Hearts & Partick Thistle vs SPFL Starts Today.

tsa57 said:
I got the impression the judge was asking why Arbitration was not an option for the SFA.
Click to expand...
It would never be admitted but the judge just might at some point be trying to give some direction to the argument - ie tell me why these corrupt, lying vermin cannot be trusted to arbitrate in a fair and even handed manner? Most do not live in a social knowledge bubble despite what we might think.
 
jaws73 said:
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
Click to expand...

Can you let us know where to get these types of update?
 
TommyC said:
Can you let us know where to get these types of update?
Click to expand...

Thread on Hearts Kickback website. They aren't doing a 'live' commentary on it (for legal reasons) but summarise at the end of each session or when there is a break in the hearing.

If you are really keen you can dial in:

+44-20-7660-8149

Access Code for hearing: 137 926 2679

When prompted press # to join.
 
marmaladebear said:
It would never be admitted but the judge just might at some point be trying to give some direction to the argument - ie tell me why these corrupt, lying vermin cannot be trusted to arbitrate in a fair and even handed manner? Most do not live in a social knowledge bubble despite what we might think.
Click to expand...

This is exactly how court operates. What the judge chooses to say or omits to say is very revealing.
 
TommyC said:
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.
Click to expand...

By phoning in, you enter a Virtual Courtroom, with the same rules as if you were physically within the Courtroom.

You are not allowed to tweet from inside a Courtroom, so you cannot tweet whilst sitting in your living room listening to proceedings.

However, if you leave the Courtroom, you can tweet what you heard within the open Court (other than certain details in sex cases etc which would identify witnesses).

So, technically, if you leave your phone in your living room and enter your kitchen/toilet, you have left the (Virtual) Courtroom and can tweet.
 
marmaladebear said:
It would never be admitted but the judge just might at some point be trying to give some direction to the argument - ie tell me why these corrupt, lying vermin cannot be trusted to arbitrate in a fair and even handed manner? Most do not live in a social knowledge bubble despite what we might think.
Click to expand...
Somebody once told me that the average High Court Judge could tell you everything that Orpheus did in the underworld, but very little about the world today!
 
What was the point regarding Fulhams arbitration argument? Like I said earlier, couldn't hear all of it right.
 
what happened. Getting excited on Hearts forums.

Juts saying spfl scored an own goal. What they mean I don't know?
 
Nothing in particular, they will just be going mental because its the SPFL QC arguing against all Thompsons points maybe.
 
tsa57 said:
what happened. Getting excited on Hearts forums.

Juts saying spfl scored an own goal. What they mean I don't know?
Click to expand...
That may well be the case but on that thread they were having banter about it being an actual match thread they are following. I.e. earlier they said VAR was being used. So have you picked this up correctly?
 
The Double A Man said:
Somebody once told me that the average High Court Judge could tell you everything that Orpheus did in the underworld, but very little about the world today!
Click to expand...
I was in the high court in Edinbrugh being representated by an eminent QC, and he told me bluntly, judges are mostly, but not all, monied, landed gentry or titled. Their views are guided by their backgrounds and upbringing, especially in civil cases were large corporations in banking, insurance are sued by your average Joe. I had got a Judge that came through the ranks from humble beginnings and I was lucky we had him sitting.
 
Last edited:
is that lawyer arguing that Hearts do not have a dispute which is required to go to arbitration?
 
This won't conclude today by the sound of it.

There is a Part 3 still to be heard and no-one has spoken on it yet.

Likely a continuation tomorrow and perhaps nothing decide until Monday (coincidentally Fixture List day!)
 
Temporary break in proceedings due to Broaband Issues – court not in session

No arbitration incorporation unless made clear.

Submission 3 – is unfair prejudice arbitrable: Refers to the papers

Submission 4 - Article 99.1 does not purport in any sense to refer all disputes to arbitration. It only says certain disputes ie SFA or Football dispute.

Is this a football dispute? The SPFL is not in any way an associated person.

Whilst in one way every dispute could be considered a football dispute, the problem with that argument is that the SPFL’s own rules only refer to disputes of a certain type.

This is a company dispute of unfair prejudice brought by shareholders of a company against how the affairs of the limited company, the SPFL have been conducted.

Reference again made to the articles involved in the Fulham case and how these are very different to article 99 by the SPFL.

Lord Clark: No ruling on motions until he has heard both.

Response from Garry Borland QC:

DT has referred to article 99, provisions relative to nomination of arbiters, time period, choice of chair and how this may be conducted. He said there might be significant delay. DT has added nothing specific to this. He has given no substantive grounds that the arbitration agreement is incapable of being performed.

He merely argues that arbitration is a less attractive option.

Article 99.1 provides in terms that it comprises an agreement by parties subject to it, to specified arbitration. This article is explicitly and arbitration agreement.

Article 99.15 the need for prior approval from SFA does not offend public interest, as it does not preclude any party from going to court and is reasonable for any parties seeking arbitration.

Lord Clark – refers back to St Johnstone 1965 when a similar precondition existed.

GB – similar but different as the SFA were more heavily involved and there was no independent arbitration tribunal.

This is no different from other contractual obligations in business life.

Therefore 99.15 is legal and enforceable.

What would a public hearing achieve? Extensive written submissions already placed

Lord Clark – Yesterday Mr Moynihan made reference to the SFA having the power to clubs ‘oot the gemme’ and said this consequence was something he had to consider.

GB - Refers back to 10.1(d) of arbitration act and the precedence in English Law and that the respondents have not prejudiced their right to arbitration. Substantive answers had to be lodged to show that there was a real dispute that fell within remit of arbitration. The case highlighted by DT (Norwest/Holst) vouches that this is correct. Requirement to demonstrate there is a 2-sided dispute suitable for arbitration.

Therefore it is entirely legitimate to provide answers.

There is no compelling reason why this should not go to arbitration.

On the issue of the clubs saying that they are sueing as shareholders of the SPFL. Petitioners are contractually obliged to comply with the SPFL rules.

Rule B4 of the SPFL rules contractually obliges petitioners to comply with the SFA articles. The 3 clubs are seeking to enforce the provisions of the SPFL articles.

Section 33 of Companies Act 2006, bind the members as if there were covenants on each member

Reconvene at 10 tomorrow morning
 
chilebear said:
How did it end today?
Click to expand...
He was asking Moynihan for papers on article ten whatever that was. Judge also pointed out that the bad guys lawyer was arguing about the SFA articles and rules regarding arbitration. He said it was an SPFL rules dispute, not the SFA'S. Bad lawyer was quoting SFA rules all the time but Judge asked about the SPFL. Guess he needs to find out from the paperwork that Hearts put in Exactly what argument was put forward regarding article 10?

That's what I made of it. Bad guy lawyer was so boring to listen to but his main point was Hearts and Thistle cannot go for arbitration as they are a member of the spfl and should abide by the rules of the spfl and sfa. .

Also threatened (in lawyer speak) that other member clubs can boot them out of the spfl.
 
Shows the ridiculous corruption and stupid rules of the sfl - your not allowed to complain or they will chuck you out
 
basilboli said:
You just know these fuckers at the SPFL will get away with their corrupt ways.
Click to expand...

I hate being the pessimist, but like most people the Judge probably equates sporting disputes being left to sporting associations to sort out amongst themselves and nothing to do with the judicial system. Unless Hearts strongly got across the corruption within Scottish officialdom, they are goosed.
 
bearspakora said:
I hate being the pessimist, but like most people the Judge probably equates sporting disputes being left to sporting associations to sort out amongst themselves and nothing to do with the judicial system. Unless Hearts strongly got across the corruption within Scottish officialdom, they are goosed.
Click to expand...

They proved the Dundee vote was received.
 
tsa57 said:
He was asking Moynihan for papers on article ten whatever that was. Judge also pointed out that the bad guys lawyer was arguing about the SFA articles and rules regarding arbitration. He said it was an SPFL rules dispute, not the SFA'S. Bad lawyer was quoting SFA rules all the time but Judge asked about the SPFL. Guess he needs to find out from the paperwork that Hearts put in Exactly what argument was put forward regarding article 10?

That's what I made of it. Bad guy lawyer was so boring to listen to but his main point was Hearts and Thistle cannot go for arbitration as they are a member of the spfl and should abide by the rules of the spfl and sfa. .

Also threatened (in lawyer speak) that other member clubs can boot them out of the spfl.
Click to expand...
Thank for the summary. Reading snippets sounds like Hearts could be ahead but never trust those slippery twats
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top