I am not a lawyer (only a law student) and, although a Saddler, I come in peace...
Some points to note:
I'm not going to quote the various parts of this length thread, but:
1. There has been criticism that ACL has refused to meet CCFC(H) Ltd. I don't know if they have or haven't; but they have no reason to meet them and a meeting would only confuse matters.
It is now established (by the Football League/FA; subject to what transpires at next hearing in the administration case in May) that the Football Club is CCFC Ltd. CCFC Ltd is now in administration and being run by an independent administrator, approved by the High Court and operating under the Insolvency Act.
CCFC(H) Ltd therefore have no business trying to meet with ACL to discuss issues such as where CCFC Ltd will do business next year: they cannot interfere with the work of the administrator. They may own CCFC Ltd; but owners lose control when a company is in administration.
2. In order to apply for a judicial review, a person ("person" includes a company) has to show a sufficient interest in the proceedings. This will be difficult but not impossible. They will, presumably, argue that ownership of a company with a contract with ACL gives them sufficient interest; but the law recognises what it calls the "veil of incorporation" - CCFC Ltd and CCFC(H) Ltd are two distinct entities. CCFC Ltd has a stronger interest than CCFC(H) Ltd; but this doesn't mean that CCFC(H) Ltd has no claim.
2a Incidentally, the High Court can (rarely) lift the veil of incorporation in it feels that two companies have been trading, for all intents and purposes, as if they were just one. I can't say that this is the case here; but I think that sufficient comments have come out from "the club" and/or its various owners to suggest that the administrator will news to look at this. It is a possibility - I'll say no stronger than that - that the High Court in May could declare that CCFC Ltd and CCFC(H) Ltd are one-and-the-same and both are in administration. If that happens the Judicial Review proceedings would only be able to take place with the consent I the administrator.
3. The original report spoke of an "appeal" to the High Court for judicial review. This is sloppy journalism and just factually wrong regarding the procedures.
A claimant applies for judicial review on paper. A single judge will review the paper and decide whether the claim is in time; whether the claimant has sufficient interest and whether he has an arguable case (not the same as a "strong" case). If yes, the matter proceeds to a hearing (a respondent can't appeal this decision).
If the judge says no, and refuses permission for judicial review, the claimant can request (but is not always granted) an oral hearing to request permission.
This latter stage is often referred to as an appeal against a refusal - so perhaps the wording of the article should be taken as suggesting that permission has already been refused? Or, perhaps it's just a poor use of words (sports journalists aren't legal journalists).
4. An application for judicial review must be made expeditiously (quickly) and in any event no later than three months from the decision in question. It must also be a matter of last resort - the person bringing the claim must have exhausted all non-legal routes to satisfaction.
5. Finally, in terms of outcome, I don't want to second-guess the judges (dangerous!); but in terms of outcome: IF the judges find the council acted unlawfully, they can award damages (but I can't see how either SISU or CCFC(H) Ltd can argue that they've suffered any loss by the decision); they can make an injunction or a prohibiting order (but the action decided by the Council in this case has already happened); they can make a mandatory order (but that's not applicable because it isn't being argues that the council isn't doing what they should be doing).
This leaves two options:
A quashing order: this would reverse the decision; but I can't see the court deciding this because the action has been made. They can't order the bank to reimpose the loan because the bank isn't a party to the proceedings.
A declaration: this is, in my view, the more likely outcome (assuming the court finds against the council); and is the courts way of saying "you're a very naughty boy". A declaration would set out what the legal decision/position of the parties ought to be, but has no real impact on the decision.
Finally, no money will have come from the council's revenue account (which pays for public services: schools, care homes, pothole repairs, etc).
Councils are large bodies with big funds which they have to invest. Would you prefer your council invested its money in some poorly regulated Icelandic Bank( or in a scheme that the council half owns?
Finally, Finally: The Government has established a "prudential borrowing" scheme for local authorities; providing money that can be spent on a variety of purposes, including regeneration schemes, improving leisure facilities, encouraging local businesses. The Ricoh would, to my mind, qualify for support even if it wasn't part-owned by the council.
Details:
http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_...c3b-d869-417d-8953-38c614e574ff&groupId=10171
And, really finally! ACL can't just write off the existing debt. It is half owned by a charitable trust. The trustees would be acting in breach of their duties under charity law were they to do so unless they sought the permission of the Charity Commission. The figures involved are so great that I don't think that the Commission would give consent without an approval order from the High Court.
(Incidentally, if the council-half of the owners agreed to write off the rental debt; wouldn't that amount to state-aid to CCFC Ltd of the kind that CCFC(H) Ltd now complain off?
