Tottenham Hotspur (Spurs) has won the right to proceed to a full judicial review hearing in October following Wednesdays ruling (24 August 2011) by Mr Justice Collins. The paper application was initially refused in June; however, the club succeeded in persuading the Court at the oral hearing that it had an arguable case. As previously discussed on these pages, the basis of the application was that there was procedural impropriety in the decision making process, and the club focused its submissions yesterday on the £40m loan from Newham Council and argued that the loan was a critical component of the bid and gave West Ham an unfair economic advantage.
Whether or not this matter actually proceeds will now be contingent upon the outcome of ongoing discussions with the Mayor of London and the government. Indeed, the announcement yesterday that Spurs will be receiving an £8m cash injection from the Mayor of London may well be sufficient to bring matters to a close, as it would mean Spurs could instead focus on the redevelopment of the site the club identified some time ago in Northumberland Park.
Comment
Spurs have pressed hard for a judicial review, but realistically their claim is unlikely to succeed, and, even if was successful, the Court would not overturn the decision, but instead order that it be reviewed, this time with greater transparency. Inevitably, given that the Games' 'legacy' was the major factor behind the decision in the first place, and the major concerns that the joint Spurs/AEG would have damaged that legacy, Spurs' bid for the stadium would in all probability have failed again.
The real objective of the application was more likely to have been strategic: to force the Mayor of London to sit down with the club and, ultimately, provide backing for the redevelopment of White Hart Lane. On balance, that objective appears now to have been achieved. The side issue is of course the involvement of Leyton Orient, which on paper has a much stronger claim. Orient's argument revolves around the application of Rule 1, Section 6.5 of the Premier League rules ('the Rules'). This article states that a club is entitled to move ground location provided that it "does not adversely affect clubs that have their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location". Orient will therefore expect any settlement of this dispute to involve funds going its way, potentially to assist with a move away from Brisbane Road.
Irish High Court overturns selection decision
The Irish Boxer, Michael O'Reilly, has succeeded in a claim that he was unlawfully deselected by the Irish Amateur Boxing Association (IABA) following an alleged breach of discipline. The boxer was dropped from the European Youth Championships for failing to attend a training session. He argued that he had to attend to fixing his van which had been damaged in a minor incident.
The governing body's decision was challenged because it put his sports grant, and the chance of competing at the 2012 Games under threat. The High Court accepted the boxer's evidence and ordered the he be considered for selection. The Court determined that the disciplinary action was unlawful and the governing body had acted ultra vires (outside of its authority). The Court also expressed its disappointment that the dispute could not be dealt within internally within the sport.
Comment
This is another example of a decision of a governing body being overturned because it has not acted within its authority, or followed its own rules.
Constructing and organising disciplinary proceedings is one of the most important tasks for any governing body. A sensible pre-planned policy, alongside carefully drafted rules that leave little or no room for alternative interpretation should allow governing bodies to immunise against legal challenge. Beyond this, it is case of taking considerable care during each step of the disciplinary process, recording all correspondence, following procedures with precision and taking legal advice where necessary.
Sports shorts
Bin Hammam appeals lifetime ban
Mohamed bin Hammam has appealed to the Fifa Appeals Committee against his lifetime ban for having been found guilty of attempted bribery. Bin Hammam has argued that the decision making process of FIFA was flawed and not independent.
If he fails in his appeal, a further appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport could be possibility.
Thomas Eggar LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC326278 whose registered office is at The Corn Exchange, Baffin's Lane, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1GE (VAT number 991259583). The word 'partner' refers to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. A list of the members of the LLP is displayed at the above address, together with a list of those non-members who are designated as partners. Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Lexcel and Investors in People accredited.
Thomas Eggar LLP is not authorised by the Financial Services Authority. However, we are included on the register maintained by the Financial Services Authority so that we can carry on insurance mediation activity which is broadly the advising on, selling and administering of insurance contracts. This part of our business, including arrangements for complaints and redress if something goes wrong, is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The register can be accessed via the Financial Services Authority website. We can also provide certain further limited investment services to clients if those services are incidental to the professional services we have been engaged to provide as solicitors.
Thesis Asset Management plc, our associated financial services company, provides a comprehensive range of investment services and advice. Thesis is owned by members of Thomas Eggar LLP but is independent of and separate to it. No lawyer connected with Thomas Eggar LLP provides services through Thesis as a practicing lawyer regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Thesis is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Thesis has its own framework of investor protection and professional indemnity cover but Thesis clients do not enjoy the statutory protection of solicitors' clients.
The contents of this article are intended as guidelines for clients and other readers. It is not a substitute for considered advice on specific issues. Consequently, we cannot accept any responsibility for this information or for any errors or omissions.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.