Printable View
Apologies if I've missed a relevant thread but I saw this judgement posted today with suggestion that the contempt of court case will be heard by end of July despite ill health of one of the defenders:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC...2025/1439.html
Thanks for that.
To summarise (my interpretation):
Willie McKay & family failed to handover communications relating to the Sala transfer by the date ordered by the judge. They received a Comtempt notice but were still evasive. Ultimately 392 communications were disclosed out of 6000 but CCFC obviously did not find what they were looking for, they asked for disclosure on the other communication but were denied direct access, the other documents were deemed as not falling under the remit of the court order. An unprofessional pissing contest took place, McKays lawyers tried smoke and mirrors which have been dismissed and has pissed the judge off.
Bottom line: CCFC didn’t find what they were looking for, the McKays will get done for contempt of court.
Open question: what & why were the McKays trying to settle?
The official version :
H: Assessment and conclusion
For the reasons explained in the Confidential Annex, the Defendants have fallen well short of demonstrating any unambiguous impropriety. Viewed in context, the negotiations between the parties were unremarkable and, indeed, fairly typical of hard-fought commercial litigation. Both sides, represented throughout by experienced legal advisors, clearly and candidly expressed their objectives during these discussions. Notably, there was no complaint at the time from the Defendants suggesting that the Claimant was using the pending Contempt Application to pressure them into an unfavourable settlement. In my view, this silence is telling. It indicates that the Defendants were fully prepared to negotiate, with the potential discontinuance of the Contempt Application being one of several bargaining chips on the table. At the time, neither the Defendants nor their legal representatives considered the Claimant's position to be improper. The cry of "unambiguous impropriety" has only been raised – much later, and after negotiations failed to reach an agreement – in an effort to provide an evidential platform from which to argue that the Contempt Application should be struck out as an abuse of process.
Consequently, the without prejudice communications remain protected and are inadmissible as evidence in the Defendants' application to strike out the Contempt Application as an abuse of process.
I: Next steps
The Contempt Application has been outstanding for far too long. Proceedings for contempt of court must be dealt with as soon as fairly possible. Part of the delay in this case has been caused by the ill-health of the First Defendant, but it is not in his interests to have these proceedings hanging over him. As I indicated at the hearing, the Contempt Application will be fixed to be heard before the end of July.
They were claiming that they (the defendants) had done everything properly to disclose documents relevant to the Sala case and had not behaved improperly in only disclosing 392 out of roughly 6000 potentially incriminating documents....a bit like Boris Johnson "lost" access to his phone with potentially incriminating evidence on it. McKay (presumably he being the First Defendant) produced a sicknote to let him off games. Interesting use of non legal terms in the judgement. Therefore, judgement is that they will have to face contempt of court hearing before end of July. Meanwhile, all relevant documents have been retrieved after a forensic examination of the phones upon which access was initially denied.. and held in private...for now. McKay should have to appear in court even if "ill". I think that's the gist of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Des Parrot
He's used the "too stressful to appear" approach before now and got away with it. I presume he is still poor and peniless, living off his wife, having been declared bankrupt. Evasive, to say the least.
McKay is no longer bankrupt - his bankruptcy ended last Summer after an extended 5 year period (normally a bankruptcy is for just one year) brought about by his pre-bankruptcy behaviour. He then immediately got his licence back to act as a UEFA registered Licenced Intermediary and started to act as one straight away. However, if he is found guilty of contempt of court then he will lose his licence again.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanD
On his illness claim that he says prevented him from turning up for a previous court hearing (I had better say allegedly here) he was well enough to travel abroad at the time to confront one of the club`s directors.
Thanks for the update.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninian1962