I didn't think McNasty would let this lie http://www.adifferentleague.co.uk/p...d-norwich-to-settle-lambert-row-in-court.html
It's a bit misleading to call a Premier League Tribunal a "court"; it's a dispute resolution body with power to impose a settlement on the parties to the dispute. Nomenclature aside, it is interesting that this time round PL is involving himself. Last time, with Colchester, PL's stance was that it was nothing to do with him, it was purely between the clubs. Can't help feeling there's a lot more behind all this than has come out so far, a suspicion fuelled by AB's talk of a Lambert "wobble" last summer. We shall see.
To be fair, that's exactly what a court is! Resolving disputes and handing out judgments. The give away is that clubs can appeal eventually into the English court system. That's neither here nor there though. I believe that with Colchester he was involved quite heavily, but tried to keep quiet. I can't help but think that someone has been badly advised here, and it could well be McNally. Still, more money for the lawyers, hooray!.... Although I hope you don't think too badly of us after that ridiculous thread the other day. We've got a bad enough rep as it is!
They will pay up one way or another Culverhouse £3 million Kassa £2 million then we will beat the plonkers 5-0 home and away and they will all waive thier shoes at lambert and try to nick Mr Heewtun
In this situation is it though? Given that the judgments it hands down are binding and subject to appeal and that it is compulsory such that clubs can't go straight to English courts, it much more closely resembles a court. It certainly isn't mediation and given the appeals process it cannot be classed as arbitration. It bears much better comparison to the Employment Tribunal. This is a court in every sense of the word.
I think we may need to go to court (or at least an arbitration tribunal) to resolve this dispute; our respective reputations are clearly at risk! And equally clearly, each party will need several QCs and an army of solicitors .......
Its never much more than a compromise. We will get something which is better than nothing and Villa will get away with less than we asked for.
Structurally, it is neither a form of ADR nor a court, although in reality it is closer to the latter but complicated by being sometimes described as an arbitorial tribunal and depending upon the nature of the hearing 'parties shall be deemed to have waived irrevocably any right to appeal, review or any recourse to a court of law'. Which in itself, is misleading as there is appellant remedy through CAS - technically, some tribunal rulings (eg GMC as a domestic tribunal and Employment Tribunals as the administrative kind) have right of appeal to the Court of Appeal or in some cases the High Court - although notionally FIFA Statues preclude recourse to Civil Courts on footballing matters - even though Rangers did exaty that! The PLT is what it says it is - a domestic tribunal. Although often considered part of the court hierarchy, and although in some regards they are very simillar, share the same administrative body (HM Courts and Tribunals Service) and form an element of Administrative Law, tribunals are not courts - the structure, rules of evidence, rules relating to hierarchial and case law precedent etc is different. Tribunals have their own structure as laid down by the Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
@ davrid. Thanks for that clarification, which more or less confirms my rather sketchy understanding. Am I also right in thinking that one of the important differences is in regard to the private nature/confidentiality of the proceedings? The findings of the tribunal are made public, but the arguments of the disputants remain confidential.
RobbieBB, CEA 2007 stipulates that Tribunal Procedure Committee establishes rules and procedures for tribunals - with the objectives of: ensuring justice; accessibility and fairness; simplcitly and efficiency etc. The tribunal itself has some control over how evidence should be presented, the amount, whether it wants to follow tribunal precedent, whether it should be held in private etc There are differences in procedure depending on the area of law but one common regulation is that the ruling must be in writing, plus the tribunal must provide any rights of review or appeal. However, only certain tribunals eg Employment, Tax etc have to provide reasons / direction for the ruling, and then only if requested to do so. Other types of tribunal may give direction if agreed between the parties and the tribunal itself so agrees. As for claimant and respondent arguments, again disclosure depends on the type of tribunal and what is and isn't agreed between the parties.
glad I don't come into contact with these things too often! And when I do, I ask someone else to deal with it...
Don't blame you! By their nature tribunals can be far more complex than courts, particularly around the granularity and interpretation of detail eg international tribunals on taxation treaties. Avoid at all costs! Requires subject matter experts, which on taxation, I'm certainly not! But most of those guys are forensic accountants first, lawyers second, and spend most of their lives in tribunal hearings, well, apart from when driving around in their Lamborghinis...what they earn would put most, if not all, Premier League players to shame.
