Rosenrot

"the Saudi people"

I don't think the aim is to win the case. I think the aim is to make the PL think they will lose the case and therefore force them to settle on the condition that the takeover is passed.

You're assuming that the whole case is simply a fishing exercise. I don't think it is. I doubt NUFC would have gone ahead with this if they didn't have some evidence already of wrongdoing. Disclosure is just a bonus to settle quicker. If NUFC does have enough evidence to establish the possibility of a case, then it isn't enough for the PL to simply delete everything, they have to actively defend the case with evidence of their own.

Also hearsay evidence is allowed in civil proceedings. NUFC can present evidence that W told X that at meeting Y, Z was said. If the PL can't refute that because the records have been "conveniently" been deleted then the judge will perhaps put more weight on the hearsay evidence.

Like I said before, if NUFC raises an allegation based on SOME evidence and the PL can't refute it because they've deleted everything, that's not necessarily a good defence. Furthermore if evidence has been deleted, for example minutes of meetings, witnesses can be called and lying under oath brings personal liability to those involved, including low-level staff such as secretaries. This whole "lets delete all the evidence with CCleaner" is not as simple as you think.

Contempt of court, which lying on a statement of truth or breaching a court order would be, is potentially punishable with up to 2 years' in prison. It's incredibly serious. Furthermore no law firm worth their salt would go near such a thing. Any solicitor involved with destruction of evidence or misleading the court is liable to be struck off. It's also self defeating. If NUFC allege that X was said at Y meeting and have circumstantial evidence for that fact and the PL could easily refute the allegation by reference to the meeting minutes but they happen to have been deleted "conveniently", the judge will likely believe NUFC.

We've already covered this. It isn't that simple.

Just to piss on your chips, that, funnily enough, wouldn't need to be disclosed because it would not be relevant to the substantive issues of the case.

The fact is, the PL is such a high profile, yet small organisation that an at-scale evidence deletion exercise would be put those involved at huge personal risk and no law firm worth their salt would go near it if they knew in any case. Solicitors are not allowed to get involved with stuff like this — they risk being struck off.

I think you've watched too many movies.

It's also self defeating. NUFC present evidence that at meeting X the PL said Y. The PL could easily refute that by providing the minutes of meeting X but oh look, conveniently they've been deleted. The judge will simply side with NUFC unless the PL can prove otherwise.

This isn't a criminal case. It's a civil case. It's balance of probabilities. If you've deleted every single relevant document, it starts to look, on the balance of probabilities, that you've done something wrong.

I can imagine if emails and boardroom minutes were left off a disclosure statement, they will be the first things asked for by NUFC as part of a specific disclosure application. "Sorry you can't have those minutes we normally keep for 5 years because they've accidentally been deleted" is not going to wash.

You still have to disclose them, you just have to object to inspection on the grounds they have been destroyed, which the judge will take into account. It looks mightily suspicious if every relevant document has been destroyed prior to disclosure.

To put it into perspective, the PL will have to put together a disclosure statement listing all relevant documents, noting any they believe they have a right to withhold from inspection. That statement is backed up with a statement of truth stating that the list is accurate. Lying in that statement is contempt of court and is potentially an imprisonable offence. Furthermore the opposing party can request disclosure and inspection of specific documents, known as specific disclosure. "We wish to see X diary entry on X date", for example. If the PL turn around and say "I'm sorry but that entry appears to be deleted", the judge may, and probably will, draw negative inferences from that.

That is contempt of court and is very serious. This isn't a TV show.

The PL will have to disclose everything relating to the substantive issues in the claim. They can't pick and choose.

If anyone's interested in the procedure of cases like this, look here: https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-11/The_Competition_Appeal_Tribunal_Rules_2015.pdf You'll probably want to look at the sections on the 'fast-track procedure' as well as 'disclosure'. TL;DR, under the fast-track procedure, the main substantive hearing is supposed to be within 6 months of the court deciding to put the case on the fast-track procedure. Disclosure happens early on and will include all documentation relevant to the substantive issues in the case. The play here, I guess, is to encourage the Premier League to settle rather than to disclose and allow inspection...

Yes.

It's security for a £150m loan.

Bear in mind that even if we win the arbitration proceedings, that doesn't mean the O&D test will be passed. The arbitrators may rule that we win on a procedural point, for example the PL didn't following process X, and thus the test should be conducted again. The test can be conducted again and still be rejected...

I do miss the takeover threads. Where else am I supposed to learn about De Marco's bread-making schedule?

I still don't understand who "Keith" from NCSL actually is.

Aye I wish they'd say nowt until there's something to say.

It's worth remembering that under English law "fruit of the poisonous tree" is not necessary inadmissible, especially if it is material to a fact in dispute.