Next Derby owners face extra £1m legal bill as Middlesbrough and Wycombe compensation claims head for ugly court battle

[Adi_Dem]

OK, you've posted this claim multiple times, there is no precedent to prove that it does or doesn't so rather than throw the term out there, why not back it up a little more. I know law is your area of expertise but there are no experts in this particular case because it has no precedence to draw from

It isn't a 'claim'. It doesn't require precedent. The remoteness of damage and causation tests are long established law. Causation is not a limit to recoverability, we need to establish causation to found a claim. Liability is limited to consequences which are attributable to the wrongful act or breach, ie there must be a causal connection between the breach and the loss sustained. The traditional 'but for' test is the preliminary stage in finding causation and asks: would the damage have accrued but for the defaulting party's action?

There is voluminous case law on this.

Causation is an issue of fact and it is the claimant who bears the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, not only the defendant’s wrong and their loss or damage but the causal link between the two. As an example, the Court of Appeal held in one case that a material contribution to the risk of damage does not prove causation, in another that causation is ultimately a fact-specific issue and the courts should take a general common-sense approach in determining whether or not a breach of contract is an ‘effective’ or ‘dominant’ cause of the innocent party's loss and in another whether the relevant breach is an ‘effective’ or ‘dominant’ cause of loss suffered by the innocent party, rather than merely creating the occasion or opportunity for the relevant loss to be sustained by such party.

I don't see how the club can pass those tests and win damages for something as remote as that which is being claimed.

 

[Subbuteo_171]

If I’ve read and understand the Stoke City accounts correctly then surely they are in breach of FFP, or has Covid given them a get out of jail free card?

For the 3 points debacle, wasn’t the “rule” at the time that a club taking legal action against the League would effectively be expelled from the competition, meaning we had no option and had to accept the punishment.

 

[BoroMart]

Given the description Adi, it will be difficult to prove. Is it more probable than not, we would have finished in a playoff place had Derby not cheated.... Probably, but not by much. Would we have been promoted in the playoffs.... Probably not, even had we been favourite.

That's why I think the 45mill will never be paid but the balance of probability is we would have made the play offs and maybe the final.

If we had finished 6th we would have played Leeds who we had drawn with twice.

Final would have been Villa, who battered us twice.

So we have a good claim of being losing finalists. I believe the loser of the final keeps all gate receipts. 90k x £35 = 3.2m for the final, add on a full house vs leeds at home and TV rights for home and away.

 

[BoroMart]

It isn't a 'claim'. It doesn't require precedent.

I didn't say it requires precedent, read it again...and it is your claim that it has no founding, others will disagree, ultimately it will be tested or not

 

[Adi_Dem]

That's why I think the 45mill will never be paid but the balance of probability is we would have made the play offs and maybe the final.

If we had finished 6th we would have played Leeds who we had drawn with twice.

Final would have been Villa, who battered us twice.

So we have a good claim of being losing finalists. I believe the loser of the final keeps all gate receipts. 90k x £35 = 3.2m for the final, add on a full house vs leeds at home and TV rights for home and away.

And I think that's completely wrong. It is more probably than not that had Derby not breached FFP we would have ended up in the play offs in one of the three seasons covered by their breach? And that we'd have made the final? No chance of proving that to any standard.

I didn't say it requires precedent, read it again

I have read it again. My post was correct the first time. You said that the absence of a precedent means that there is no way "to prove that it does or doesn't" and that "there are no experts in this particular case because it has no precedence to draw from". My response to that is correct i.e. that it doesn't require a precedent to draw from but rather the long established tests and case law will be applied to the facts of this case.

 

[BoroMart]

And I think that's completely wrong. It is more probably than not that had Derby not breached FFP we would have ended up in the play offs in one of the three seasons covered by their breach? And that we'd have made the final? No chance of proving that to any standard.



I have read it again. My post was correct the first time. You said that the absence of a precedent means that there is no way "to prove that it does or doesn't" and that "there are no experts in this particular case because it has no precedence to draw from". My response to that is correct i.e. that it doesn't require a precedent to draw from but rather the long established tests and case law will be applied to the facts of this case.

nope, you are still reading it wrong

 

[Adi_Dem]

nope, you are still reading it wrong

I'm not but if you think so then explain it properly.

 

[BoroMart]

No, I don't think I have misunderstood anything. Even by your analysis I fail to see how it passes basic causation tests. There is no way that we meet the standard of proof or but/for type causation tests with this.

could this be 2022s Jon Jo Shelvey and one other?

We'll have to wait and see how this plays out, Gibson appears a fairly litigious individual, and he's experienced enough now to know when something has merit and when to fold the cards in. HE's been pursuing this one for 3 years and still feels it's worth chasing having much more information than anyone on here.

 

[Adi_Dem]

could this be 2021s Jon Jo Shelvey and one other?

We'll have to wait and see how this plays out, Gibson appears a fairly litigious individual, and he's experienced enough now to know when something has merit and when to fold the cards in. HE's been pursuing this one for 3 years and still feels it's worth chasing having much more information than anyone on here.

Mature response. Now, care to tell me how I have misunderstood your post about precedents?

 

[BoroMart]

Mature response. Now, care to tell me how I have misunderstood your post about precedents?

My point about precedent is that this is purely your interpretation without most of the facts, you haven't got any related precedence to draw on. So although your opinion is valid, your persistent statements of fact that this has no merit, are just your personal opinions.

 

[Laughing]

Are we still getting shelvey?

 

[BoroMart]

Are we still getting shelvey?

and one other

 

[Adi_Dem]

My point about precedent is that this is purely your interpretation without most of the facts, you haven't got any related precedence to draw on. So although your opinion is valid, your persistent statements of fact that this has no merit, are just your personal opinions.

That simply doesn't make sense or align with what you said in your post. Of course it is my legal opinion based on publicly available knowledge and the established law that this claim will not succeed. In order to reach that opinion no legal precedent is necessary, only an understanding of the current law on causation, which is exactly what I said in my response. So as I said, no precedent is required.

 

[BoroMart]

That simply doesn't make sense or align with what you said in your post. Of course it is my legal opinion based on publicly available knowledge and the established law that this claim will not succeed. In order to reach that opinion no legal precedence is necessary, only an understanding of the current law on causation, which is exactly what I said in my response. So as I said, no precedent is required.

 

[Adi_Dem]

Insightful.

Let me explain why what you just posted is nonsense.

Firstly, I haven't claimed this to be anything more than my opinion based on my legal expertise and the publicly available information. That is all it is. In fact, I made clear earlier in the thread that what I was saying came with the caveat that I haven't seen the pleadings.

Secondly you said this, "there are no experts in this particular case because it has no precedence to draw from". This is, basically, wrong. The absence of a precedent is largely irrelevant. The tests I have described will be applied to the circumstances of the case. Based on my understanding of the legal tests that will be applied and the publicly available facts of the case I can, with some weight, say that my opinion is that the case will fail. There does not need to be precedent to have experts in the case or to interpret the law.

Thirdly, you said this "you've posted this claim multiple times, there is no precedent to prove that it does or doesn't". The claim referred to being that it won't pass the causation tests that I have outlined. As I have already said, you don't need precedent to be able to apply the causation tests to these circumstances. The causation tests are designed to be applied to all manner of circumstances, many of which have never been heard by the court before. Just because this particular claim with these particular facts hasn't ever been made does not mean that with some degree of certainty we can't predict how the tests will be applied because........finally, there are loads of precedents anyway!

You're confusing a legal precedent with a case that is identical in its facts to the one we are discussing. They aren't always the same thing. This law is well tested and there is a huge volume of case law that tells the court how to interpret the facts of any given case.

Hope that helps.

 

[borolad259]

Of all the Mooners to get into a legal spat with

 

[Soutra]

It's a civil case and so basically we need to prove -

(i) a breach (which is the easy part I would suggest);
(ii) that there was loss/damage caused by the breach.

Absolutely correct. Precedent may help to establish that there was a breach, but in reality it's not that difficult to say "but if Derby hadn't done what they did, then Derby may have finished in a lower league position".

That's where it gets hard though. Establishing how much loss MFC incurred is tough. Does it follow that Boro would have been in the playoffs? Would Boro have beaten whoever they would have played? Would Boro have won the playoff final? At each step it gets harder, less likely.

Derby have to use resources they don't have to defend this. I'm sure they'll try to settle, but I have no idea what they'd offer.

 

[BoroMart]

Let me explain why what you just posted is nonsense.

can't be bothered to read your post, you are back in on of your funny moods

 

[BoroMart]

Of all the Mooners to get into a legal spat with

I'm not in a legal spat with him, I'm purely pointing out that there aren't any precedents to draw from, so he has his views, and fair enough it's his area of expertise........but law is broad and complex, there is no one fountain of knowledge, and there are no experts in this cases merits. So although his opinion is welcome, it isn't the be all and end, he can't state as factual that it is a waste of time, he has an educated opinion, but it's just that, particularly when he isn't privy to any detail of the legal challenge.

 

[Adi_Dem]

can't be bothered to read your post, you are back in on of your funny moods

If you’d read it you’d understand why this following post:

I'm not in a legal spat with him, I'm purely pointing out that there aren't any precedents to draw from, so he has his views, and fair enough it's his area of expertise........but law is broad and complex, there is no one fountain of knowledge, and there are no experts in this cases merits. So although his opinion is welcome, it isn't the be all and end, he can't state as factual that it is a waste of time, he has an educated opinion, but it's just that, particularly when he isn't privy to any detail of the legal challenge.

is both inaccurate and unnecessary.

I’m not surprised you didn’t want to read the post though. No funny moods, just correcting you on something that I happen to be an expert in and which you have self evidently misunderstood.