Category Archives: Civil Law

Bad News for SPFL – Court Allows £1.75 Million Damages Claim Against SPFL to Continue

The Inner House of the Court of Session has today upheld the decision of Lord Woolman in the case of the SPFL v Lisini Pub Management. The full decision can be read here.

In terms of this decision the Court has upheld the dismissal of the action brought by the SPFL to prevent the defender, which owns various pubs, showing SPL/SPFL football matches via a Polish decoder and for damages for breach by Lisini of an undertaking not to do so.

This case follows that where the English courts referred a similar dispute to the European Court of Justice and as Lord Woolman noted:-

“Put short, the ECJ found that clauses prohibiting the use of foreign decoders and smart cards were void. They constituted a restriction on competition and the [free competition] provisions of European law prevailed over the 1988 Act.”

Lord Woolman’s decision was challenged by the SPFL but this appeal has failed. Continue reading

Advertisements

749 Comments

Filed under Civil Law, Courts, SPFL v Lisini Pub Management

Rangers’ Statement Tonight Reads as if They Won at Court Today! And It Blames their Lawyers and the Judge!

If you read the statement released by Rangers to the Stock Exchange this evening, you might be mistaken for thinking that the Board won the case and the Rebels lost! Have a look at the statement below and especially the sections in bold.

The statement reads:-

Further to the announcement on 4 October 2013 regarding the petition filed in the Scottish Courts (the “Petition”) by Paul Murray, Malcolm Murray, Ian Cormack, John Graham and Colin Howell being shareholders representing 0.71 per cent of the voting rights of the Company (the “Petitioners”), the Company confirms that the Petition was called in the Scottish courts to be heard today, Monday 24 October, 2013 by Lord Tyre.

The Petitioners sought an interim order to require the Company to circulate notices received from the Petitioners pursuant to section 338 of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Notices”) to shareholders putting forward resolutions for the appointment of Malcolm Murray, Paul Murray, Scott Murdoch and Alex Wilson as directors of the Company.  The Petitioners also sought an interim order to require the Company not to hold its Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) until such time as the Notices have been circulated to shareholders.

The court has ruled that the AGM convened by the Company to be held on 24 October 2013 should not go ahead on this date in order for there to be sufficient time for the shareholder resolutions as proposed by the Petitioners in the form of the Notices to be circulated and considered by the shareholders of the Company.

The Petitioners’ submission and argument that the Company should simply have accepted the signed Notices at face value without any further enquiry was rejected by Lord Tyre.  Continue reading

150 Comments

Filed under Civil Law, Rangers

Why the Rangers Rebels Will Win Monday’s Court Hearing Against the Board

Monday 14th October sees a second “First Hearing” in what is prosaically listed on the court sheets as “P996/13 Pet: Paul Murray &c for orders under Companies Act 1988”. The case is scheduled, according to the list, to go before Lord Tyre.

The case had originally called on 4th October and had led to two Stock Exchange announcements by RIFC PLC, the relevant parts of each being at the foot of this post.

The Board’s position was summed up in the pre-hearing announcement where it was stated:-

Whilst the Company intends to strongly resist the Petition the Board intends to take all possible steps to avoid unnecessary cost and disruption to the Company.

The case first called in court later on 4th October and after that hearing Paul Murray, prime mover in the Rebels and erstwhile Blue Knight, issued the following statement:-

We are delighted with today’s hearing and we look forward to having the opportunity of establishing the validity of our proposed director nominations on Monday 14 October at the full hearing.

In the meantime we would ask shareholders to firstly DO NOTHING until it is clear what they are being asked to vote upon at the AGM and secondly note the actions of this Board of Directors who seem hell bent on putting up every legal and technical blockage to our nominations.

Why are they so scared of a vote if they have all the shareholder support they claim to have? It is ridiculous that we are forced into going to the Court of Session in order to give the shareholders a democratic vote at the AGM.

The stalling tactics of this Board are indicative of why the shareholders felt compelled to make these ‎requisitions in the first place.” Continue reading

141 Comments

Filed under Civil Law, Companies Act 2006, Rangers

Guess Which Blogger Has Been Taken to Court by Rangers?

As I often say the Scottish courts website is a great source of information and often provides scoops for those happy enough to plough through its pages.

A quick look today revealed a new case on the “calling list”. This means that the action has been raised and served upon the defender, and because at least 21 days have passed the pursuers want to make progress.

Whilst it is not clear precisely what the action is for, I think it is noteworthy that Rangers have taken action.

Who is the lucky blogger to fall victim to Biggart Baillie, the lawyers for Rangers? Continue reading

122 Comments

Filed under Civil Law, Rangers

Daily Mail Wrongly Castigates “Human Rights” and “Travellers” in Article re Stolen Caravan

The good old Daily Mail never ceases to disappoint. Each day it shows that it is in fact a very clever spoof newspaper, seeking to poke fun at the prejudices of some of its readers. After all, the alternative, namely that the editorial line of the Mail is genuine and that it means what it says is too horrible to contemplate.

As well as the BBC being a target for Mail disapproval, readers might perceive that the paper also does not like those perceived to be “non-British”. I would never accuse the Mail of racism, so please do not take that implication from what I say. However I can see how a misguided soul could take that impression from some of its articles.

On Monday the Mail published a piece which is now under the headline:-

“Police won’t hand stolen caravan back to couple to protect human rights of the travellers living in it”.

The headline originally referred to “gypsies” and not travellers. At some point over the last day or so that has been changed. Sense prevailing perhaps? Continue reading

38 Comments

Filed under Civil Law, Criminal Law, Daily Mail, Human Rights, Press