Jackie Broon

The PSG setup isn't relevant, they're not in the EPL and I'm not sure there even is a similar O&D test in France. City could be but I assume Sheikh Mansour is disclosed as a director for them. Palace is probably more relevant if it is the case that the PL haven't required them to disclose the owners of the company in Delaware.

It seemed pretty clear from the hearing that, even if the PL don't win the jurisdiction challenge or get a stay, there won't be a case management conference before next year and disclosure won't happen before that. So, there won't be disclosure in the CAT case before the arbitration hearing in January. Maybe the PL would settle if they lose the jurisdiction challenge, but there doesn't seem to be much reason for them to now if there won't be disclosure in the CAT before the arbitration.

Yeah, there is that

Firstly, the stuff about SJHL being bound by the PL rules is nothing to do with the overall CAT case, it's just an argument in relation to the PL's jurisdiction challenge. The PL's challenge is that section 9 of the Arbitration Act requires a stay on any other proceedings on those matters brought by a party to the arbitration. We've realised that SJHL hasn't signed up to the PL's rules and so technically isn't party to the arbitration. It's just a potential get out of jail free card for us on jurisdiction, it's not our whole jurisdiction case and will have nothing to do with the main CAT case. Secondly, the PL can't just apply their own rules as they wish. They are in effect a regulator of a closed market of competing businesses, deciding who can enter that market and therefore affecting competition within it, they need to do that in accordance with competition law.

It does. I think the PL might unofficially know PIF are still in really, which I think is why their QC reacted the way he did when ours said they didn't know whether PIF are still interested and referred to the Inter story.

Although it's only the PL's QC that said PIF are still in (although he seemed very sure of that) our QC said that PIF have given no indication that they are still interested (which the PL's QC laughed at).

Almost certainly yes, although there would probably be quite a bit of it that would cut away to private, like yesterday.

By the PL's rules they should have been disclosed as a director but weren't and the PL never picked up on it.

Aye, particularly as his whole argument is that both cases are identical.

That wasn't really their case, their case was around section 9 of the Arbitration Act which restricts other court proceedings brought by parties to an arbitration. The club's argument is that SJHL are not a party to the arbitration. From my understanding the PL rules only came into it insofar as the PL argued that they require SJHL to be a party to the arbitration.

I thought it was convincing, but they don't need to win that part it's just something that would torpedo the PL's case if they do. The main argument will be that the scope of the arbitration is different to the CAT case and most of that was heard in private. The SJHL stuff just gives us two different routes to defeat the PL's case, the PL have to win both arguments, we only have to win one. Even if the PL do that it looks like at best they will get a stay until after arbitration they're not getting the case thrown out altogether.

Barristers are self employed, chambers are essentially just groups of self employed barristers sharing administrative costs rather than a company that employs them.

They would still have to be able to provide evidence to back that up if it went to appeal, arbitration or other judicial process. They couldn't rely on the WTO report because that is being appealed and there is no prospect of that appeal happening in the near future. There is an exemption for convictions under appeal in the O&D test.

No state would agree to that, certainly not one like the KSA, it would essentially bind them to abide by English law.

It's in the interest of our case right now to make it seem like PIF have walked away. The PL seem very sure that they haven't.

Knockout blow there.

Judge looking very exasperated and unconvinced.

Yeah, but as I've heard, from a QC, one of the main skills of a barrister is to put across complex arguments in a succinct, easy to understand way. My experience of hearing cases put across by barristers is that they are usually completely convincing, whatever the strength of their case. You hear one side and it seems they have it 100% tied up and then you hear the other side and they completely take that case apart and persuade you of the opposite.

Arbitration starts again on 3rd January then.

It seems that it hasn't and the PL haven't required it to until this case was brought by SJH Ltd.

If those rules are anti-competitive or otherwise unfair they would be unenforceable, and that's not within the remit of the arbitration. Also, it seems that SJH Ltd haven't actually explicitly agreed to follow them.

This is all just one part of the argument, trying to torpedo the PL's case due to them fucking up and not requiring St. James Holdings to be a director. Our main case is likely to be that the PL's OD test and/or the way it has been undertaken is anti-competitive and that is not within the scope of the arbitration.

Not really in the grand scheme of things, it's actually rattling along so far for a legal proceeding.

Other recent jurisdiction challenges on the CAT site have taken about a month from the hearing to the decision.

The worst of the repeated bilge is the people commenting that the thread is full of repeated bilge, it's easy enough just not to click on it.