JudicialReview (1 Viewer)

njdlawyer · Jul 4, 2013

An agreement with NTFC giving SISU / Otium security of tenure effectively removes the final obstacle to their takeover. We all know that the spineless and supine Football League will overlook or bend their own rules to let it happen

The only way that it can be prevented is a Judicial Review of the way in which the Football League is applying those rules. Northampton is not in the "conurbation" of Coventry, it is not within the area within which we are traditionally associated, we are not homeless or without a ground otherwise (as we have one of if not the newest stadium in the country) and the proposed move causes huge disadvantage to the supporters. Those are the rules they are supposed to apply

It needs someone or an organisation (SBT?) prepared to commit funds to taking further legal advice preparatory to JR proceedings. Otherwise its a done deal and Sixfields it is because no amount of letters / emails / adverse publicity is going to make the FL stand up to SISU / Otium

Nick · Jul 4, 2013

I think the SBT have the help of a lawyer anyway?

fernandopartridge · Jul 4, 2013

njdlawyer said:
An agreement with NTFC giving SISU / Otium security of tenure effectively removes the final obstacle to their takeover. We all know that the spineless and supine Football League will overlook or bend their own rules to let it happen

The only way that it can be prevented is a Judicial Review of the way in which the Football League is applying those rules. Northampton is not in the "conurbation" of Coventry, it is not within the area within which we are traditionally associated, we are not homeless or without a ground otherwise (as we have one of if not the newest stadium in the country) and the proposed move causes huge disadvantage to the supporters. Those are the rules they are supposed to apply

It needs someone or an organisation (SBT?) prepared to commit funds to taking further legal advice preparatory to JR proceedings. Otherwise its a done deal and Sixfields it is because no amount of letters / emails / adverse publicity is going to make the FL stand up to SISU / Otium

The thing is, like I said before, the precedent has been set with other clubs. Brighton played at Gillingham which is 70 miles away.

It'd be interesting to hear what the deal is with Northampton. If they can demonstrate a better deal for the club than ACL have offered then where does that leave things?

duffer · Jul 4, 2013

I don't think Judicial Reviews apply to the Football League, because they're not a government authority.

You can challenge FL decisions in courts for the usual reasons, breach of contract, restraint of trade etc., but as I understand it if they are following their own rules it's tricky to get their decisions overturned.

duffer · Jul 4, 2013

fernandopartridge said:
The thing is, like I said before, the precedent has been set with other clubs. Brighton played at Gillingham which is 70 miles away.

It'd be interesting to hear what the deal is with Northampton. If they can demonstrate a better deal for the club than ACL have offered then where does that leave things?

It doesn't leave them in Northampton, unless the FL goes against its own rules. SISU will have to move CCFC back to the City of Coventry or very near to it if they wish to remain in the FL. This according to their own rules and recent precedent, and fwiw SISU's stated plan (if it's worth the bog roll it's probably written on).

Brighton are obviously back in Brighton (or nearly), but the epic hassles they had building a new stadium might inform those who think SISU could realistically gain planning permission and build a new ground within three years.

Sky Blues · Jul 4, 2013

If the Football League thought they would face a legal bill whichever way they vote today, maybe they'll think harder before deciding. As it is, I suspect they will be noting the prospect of a legal fight (and the costs associated with it) from Sisu if they don't say yes today.

Having said that, I wouldn't suggest for one minute that the thought of legal action would actually stop the Football League from doing what is right by the fans of football in this country...

njdlawyer · Jul 4, 2013

duffer said:
I don't think Judicial Reviews apply to the Football League, because they're not a government authority.

You can challenge FL decisions in courts for the usual reasons, breach of contract, restraint of trade etc., but as I understand it if they are following their own rules it's tricky to get their decisions overturned.

JR is a mechanism to challenge, through the courts, the application of rules or principles by any organisation not just Government bodies.

duffer · Jul 4, 2013

njdlawyer said:
JR is a mechanism to challenge, through the courts, the application of rules or principles by any organisation not just Government bodies.

I've never heard of a JR being used against an organisation in the way that you describe. I've heard of it used to challenge Councils (often against PP approval), tribunals (e.g. for immigration decisions), and even government officials, but not private bodies like the FL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law

Have you got any examples of a JR being used in the way you describe?

But the FL have had their decisions challenged in the Civil court.

http://www.5rb.com/case/Stevenage-Borough-FC-v-The-Football-League

Which would seem to be a more logical route.

RPHunt · Jul 4, 2013

njdlawyer said:
JR is a mechanism to challenge, through the courts, the application of rules or principles by any organisation not just Government bodies.

Problem is there has been a precedent. A judge decided some time ago that the FA was outside the scope of judicial review.

However, things have moved on since then and it is possible that a request might now be allowable under European human rights laws.

RegTheDonk · Jul 4, 2013

Sky Blues said:
........Having said that, I wouldn't suggest for one minute that the thought of legal action would actually stop the Football League from doing what is right by the fans of football in this country...

Wouldn't that be f***ing great. Actually put the fans first.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jul 4, 2013

njdlawyer said:
An agreement with NTFC giving SISU / Otium security of tenure effectively removes the final obstacle to their takeover. We all know that the spineless and supine Football League will overlook or bend their own rules to let it happen

The only way that it can be prevented is a Judicial Review of the way in which the Football League is applying those rules. Northampton is not in the "conurbation" of Coventry, it is not within the area within which we are traditionally associated, we are not homeless or without a ground otherwise (as we have one of if not the newest stadium in the country) and the proposed move causes huge disadvantage to the supporters. Those are the rules they are supposed to apply

It needs someone or an organisation (SBT?) prepared to commit funds to taking further legal advice preparatory to JR proceedings. Otherwise its a done deal and Sixfields it is because no amount of letters / emails / adverse publicity is going to make the FL stand up to SISU / Otium

With the greatest of respect, it takes some CCFC-orientated lawyers to offer to work for free too, to show willing to work on behalf of the club they 'love'. Then, match that traction with funds; yes

njdlawyer · Jul 4, 2013

RPHunt said:
Problem is there has been a precedent. A judge decided some time ago that the FA was outside the scope of judicial review.

However, things have moved on since then and it is possible that a request might now be allowable under European human rights laws.

The case to which you refer was brought by, ironically enough, the Football League and failed (as did a case for JR brought by the Aga Khan against the Jockey Club) because the party affected (FL / Aga Khan) had voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the body against which they complained - there was a contractual agreement. An unconnected and otherwise disenfranchised body ie fans have not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction

JR is constantly evolving - by its very nature it re-invents itself. I'm not saying it would succeed but exploration of it as a possible avenue may be one of the few options left if not the only one

duffer · Jul 4, 2013

njdlawyer said:
The case to which you refer was brought by, ironically enough, the Football League and failed (as did a case for JR brought by the Aga Khan against the Jockey Club) because the party affected (FL / Aga Khan) had voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the body against which they complained - there was a contractual agreement. An unconnected and otherwise disenfranchised body ie fans have not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction

JR is constantly evolving - by its very nature it re-invents itself. I'm not saying it would succeed but exploration of it as a possible avenue may be one of the few options left if not the only one

It's a fair point, and I stand corrected. Looking again it seems there is scope for JR against bodies like the FL and FA, but I think if there's the possiblity of redress via other legal avenues then that will always be the court's preferred option...

Bloody expensive too, as I recall. Five figures, at least to get something running against a dubious planning decision, which is where I've been involved before...

FootyLawBlog · Jul 4, 2013

njdlawyer said:
The only way that it can be prevented is a Judicial Review of the way in which the Football League is applying those rules.

According to part 54.1(2)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a judicial review can only be brought to review the lawfulness of (i) an enactment or (ii) a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function.

Neither of these apply and so a judicial review is not possible; unless it can be argued that the Football League are exercising a public function in applying their own internal rules.

But as their rules are internal to the Football League and not enshrined in a Royal Charter, Statutory Instrument or similar, then I don't think you can successfully argue that an in-house application of in-house rules constitutes a public function.

deanocity3 · Jul 4, 2013

fernandopartridge said:
The thing is, like I said before, the precedent has been set with other clubs. Brighton played at Gillingham which is 70 miles away.

It'd be interesting to hear what the deal is with Northampton. If they can demonstrate a better deal for the club than ACL have offered then where does that leave things?

How can it be a better deal,gates of max 3,000 at sixfields compared to 12,000 at ricoh,
3,000 at average £20 = £60,000 at Northants,with no corporate sales
12,000 x £20= £240,000 at the ricoh+ programme and corporate sales.
we will not finish the season as we have no money to pay the players

JudicialReview (1 Viewer)

njdlawyer

New Member

Nick

Administrator

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member

duffer

Well-Known Member

duffer

Well-Known Member

Sky Blues

Active Member

njdlawyer

New Member

duffer

Well-Known Member

RPHunt

New Member

RegTheDonk

Well-Known Member

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member

njdlawyer

New Member

duffer

Well-Known Member

FootyLawBlog

New Member

deanocity3

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

JudicialReview (1 Viewer)

New Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency