In English law you, as the claimant, have to show that the action affected you, either because it broke an Act of Parliament, for example you were sacked because you were white and not black, because it was a breach of contract or you had suffered a common law wrong, a tort. CTWD would have come under the tort provisions, we should have been consulted, but weren't. Once we were consulted there was no tort. A City fan in favour of the name change would have difficulty arguing the same point because they hadn't suffered a wrong by not being consulted by the club. They had the same opportunity to campaign as CTWD but choose not to. If they'd have been a Yes to Hull Tigers campaign it would have been consulted by the FA. If the press reports are correct Assem Allam's argument is that because they were treated differently Hull City suffered a wrong, or a tort. As I typed this I wondered how my 20 year old self ended up here. I've answered some of your questions in your quote. I had to expand the quote to see all of them.
It seems rude to just say thanks after you've taken the time for such a compressive reply, but I understand it better now because of it, thank you.
No problem, one good turn deserves another. I'm just amazed I ended up being interested in the ins and outs of English law.
I just love that word; change a vowel and it moves from a legal position to a cheeky one. I would join the committee for the cheeky provisions.
