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
Surely they've had enough time to delete everything by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninian1962
IT experts can recover virtually anything even if people think they have deleted it. Also, the vast majority of documents have already been recovered and used in support of the club claim against FC NantesQuote:
Originally Posted by bigjoe
The French court date for Cardiff’s civil case against Nantes (£104m compensation) was set in April but has been put back from 22 September to 8 December because Nantes weren’t ready to defend themselves!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
There are reasons why Nantes aren`t ready to defend themselves in Court.
In their original defence they claimed they had no knowledge of Willie McKay and that he wasn`t acting as their agent. However, the papers and computer data recovered by CCFC`s separate successful legal action against McKay revealed that he clearly was and that Nantes were therefore clearly misleading the Court in their earlier submissions and defence . They therefore had to totally change their defence.
In addition to showing McKay to be acting as an agent, the new data also proved that Nantes were using two other unauthorised agents in this and other transfer activities. Such action on their part is illegal in France and actually a criminal offence which the French authorities are currently investigating. Be interesting to see how Nantes try and wriggle out of that one or convince the French Court that they have acted honestly in the overall legal case.
Thanks for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninian1962
In respect of the insurers of FC Nantes would you know if they would have liability to pay the claimant (CCFC) if the Court determines in favour of CCFC whether FC Nantes is judged to be negligent or acted criminally in French law. If both outcomes make the insurers liable would this make an out of court settlement more likely.
In the case of CCFC being successful in either proving negligence or criiminality of FC Nantes would you think there would be a case to answer for FIFA and the EFL in their peremptory treatment of CCFC before the full facts of this tragic case were known.
Sorry to put this on you but I always regard your postings as having a degree of insight that seems to have left this octogenarian!!
The problem with providing you with a sensible answer is that I have no idea what (if any) insurance Nantes have in place in respect of this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by pomeroy
On the second part of your question this is easier to answer. If CCFC win the case there will be no follow up against FIFA , UEFA or the EFL as they only ruled on whether Emiliano Sala was a CCFC player at the time of his tragic death, They weren`t and aren`t involved in the case of whether or not Nantes and their agent were responsible by their actions )or lack of them) leading to his death
CheersQuote:
Originally Posted by Ninian1962
Thanks for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninian1962
However if it is ruled that the transfer of Sala was conducted by at least one if not more unlicensed agents would not the transfer in itself be deemed null and void and thus the various governing bodies that imposed sanctions on CCFC without being aware of the full facts could be liable for consequential losses suffered by CCFC ?
No , because they only tested and ruled on whether or not the transfer was completed contractually and they ruled it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by pomeroy
But THEIR ruling could it not be deemed to be deficient in the light of the true facts of the case being uncovered?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninian1962
Still no.Quote:
Originally Posted by pomeroy
Why no? You have to give a reason. Is this not a reasonable case to be brought to the CAS?. The governing bodies all determined against CCFC before being made aware of the full facts of this unique case. The EFL, EUFA and FIFA have to be accountable to a higher authority if it is considered that their judgements have been flawed. You can rest assure that if CCFC are successful in their action against FC Nantes further litigation could follow especially having regard to the character of VT.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
Still no.Quote:
Originally Posted by pomeroy
The sooner we lose this case and it's all over the better. £104m is a disgrace.
There is a small possibility that Nantes may be made to reimburse CCFC the price they paid for Sala.
However, in my opinion it is extremely unlikely that they will award any damages for loss of earnings arising from relegation, caused by Sala's death. Clubs have tried to win costs like this before, and have always failed - you cannot blame your entire season's results on the loss of one player, whoever he is.
You can blame it on a manager though and our manager at the time, if the whole story emerged, would (allegedly) be up to his neck in the whole sad affair.Quote:
Originally Posted by tforturton
So you completely side with FC Nantes, a club already charged with criminal offences by the French Courts, a club using a bunch of crooks also charged by the French Courts, to try and stitch up the club I have supported since 1953. The disgrace lies plainly in the hands of FC Nantes, a club you will remember that refused to contribute anything to the fund set up for the Sala family.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCBlue
“you cannot blame your entire season's results on the loss of one player, whoever he is”
The Toshack brigade still do !