Comment on Accountability via Transparency. by John Clark.

    Well, that wee trip to Parliament house was hardly worth the effort. Lasted about half an hour.

    Lord Brodie reminded Mr Moynihan QC and Mr McKinlay QC that in his previous decision he had indicated  that he had referred to cases that neither the pursuer nor the defender had cited in their submissions, and that he had said he would give them the opportunity to raise any matters.

    Neither Counsel had anything to raise on that score, except that Mr McKinlay mentioned that in his submission the client receiving advice was the staff of the Crown Office, whereas the Lord Advocate was claiming to be the client.

    And in those circumstances it was wholly reasonable to argue the point.

    But even if in principle Privilege attached, it was still necessary for the pursuer to see the contents of the envelope.

    Lord Brodie asked whether an award of expenses had been made. 

    Mr Moynihan remarked it would have to be contested in Court.

    There was a brief interchange which I could not follow, that seemed to relate to expenses, so I've no idea whether any order was made.

    More interesting, I hear from Whitehouse that 'The Herald' is to run a piece about the case sometime soon-perhaps this Wednesday or next Wednesday.

    The main action Trial/Proof is scheduled for June 17th, I heard.(I thought it was the 18th, but Whitehouse should know, I suppose!)

    The Herald's piece should make interesting reading, because of course the Crown Office admitted at the previous hearing that they 'had no evidential basis' and, as Whitehouse says, the Crown therefore did wrong  when they arrested and detained him: can it be right in such circumstances that the Crown Office is immune?


    John Clark Also Commented

    Accountability via Transparency.
    Ex Ludo 24th June 2019 at 09:24

    '….I would not be surprised if FIFA get a bit jealous and also build a shiny new symbol of wealth '…


    Your post prompted me to have a look ( not that I'm anything other than almost completely financially ignorant!) at FIFA's Annual report for 2018 at this link


    They could quite easily afford to blow a couple of hundred million quid on a vanity building project!

    ( I suppose, incidentally, that all the senior bods are covered by some form of directors' indemnity insurance?)


    Accountability via Transparency.
    StevieBC 23rd June 2019 at 15:35

    "…..He is limited to Bosmans and loanees to improve his squad, and deliver silverware. ..'


    I wonder does he know and appreciate how financially strapped TRFC Ltd is? Does he know even as much as we on SFM know about the finances, thanks to the efforts of several posters who know about balance sheets?

    Would any one of us apply for a job at Ibrox,  in the knowledge that TRFC  is living from hand to mouth, and faces having to meet some serious damages claims, which might well swallow up such UEFA money that they might receive this coming season?



    Accountability via Transparency.
    Corrupt official 22nd June 2019 at 20:20

    '..Dead clever these lawyers….'


    Are we speaking of William McCormick QC, who appeared for  King and Murray ( and TRFC and Rangers Retail) before Mr Richard Millett QC(sitting as a Deputy Judge of the (English) High Court on 22 March 2017?

    Para 28 of the judgment after that hearing has this:

    "Even by this early point it ought to have been obvious to all Defendants that Mr King and Mr Murray's positions as directors of the Company were hopelessly conflicted. On the other hand, the positions of the SDI-appointed directors to the Company's board were more closely aligned with the interests of the Company. It may very well have been the case that the business of the Company relied upon relationships with other entities in the Sports Direct group which were disadvantageous to the Company. That is a point of which Mr King makes much in his evidence, and much was made by Mr McCormick QC in his submissions on behalf of the Defendants. However, even if that were so, it ought not to have disabled the Company's board from seeking to uphold the IPLA and thereby protect its sole asset and revenue stream. The relevant comparator was between an allegedly disadvantageous IPLA and no IPLA at all, and ergo no business at all for the Company. "

    It doesn't seem too clever to me to be defending two members of the Board of Rangers Retail Ltd who, as also being directors of TRFC Ltd, were  acting (via boycott-support and purported termination of the deal that TRFC Ltd has with Rangers Retail ) not in the interests of Rangers Retail [ as they had a fiduciary duty to do] but in the interests of TRFC Ltd. 

    If it ought to have been obvious to King and Murray that they were 'hopelessly conflicted" how much more obvious ought it to have been to 'one of Her Majesty's Counsel, learned in the law'? broken heart









    Recent Comments by John Clark

    Bad Money?
    Leaving aside the particulars of the case , what is one to make of the criticisms of the legal teams, other than that as lawyers they seem to fall far short of acceptable standard in allowing their witnesses to waffle into discussing what the parties had intended their contracts to mean, when ,it seems that any first year law student by opening a text book could find that it is accepted law that “… The law excludes from the admissible background the previous negotiations of the parties and their declarations of subjective intent …”  

    from the 'judgment' of Mr Persey QC:

    "46. I have already referred to the extensive references to the parties’ subjective intentions and arguments on construction in the witness statements.   The witnesses should not have entered into the arena in this way.  Nor should their legal teams have allowed them to do so.  Much of the argument in Rangers’ skeleton argument refers to and relies upon this inadmissible evidence and argument.  "

    So not only was there one lawyer who actually lied, there were others whose knowledge of Contract Law seems to be not much more extensive than yours or mine! Or lawyers who do not adequately master their briefs and bone up on ALL  the relevant, established law. 

    A poor reflection on the English legal profession.


    Bad Money?
    Allyjambo 23rd July 2019 at 13:14

    '…Isn't that the usual function of an SFA official?'


    And provided to TRFC Ltd free!!

    Bad Money?
    Finloch 23rd July 2019 at 08:55

    "…..Donalda your historic and current BBC silence is deafening and inexcusable"


    Finloch, absolutely true!

    Donalda  may have used up all her business skills ,intellectual powers , diplomatic and personal gifts in breaking through the 'glass ceiling ' and has opted for the quiet life.

    Or maybe she is as unfit for the job as her predecessor in office and  as our SFA Board members are for their jobs, and simply does what she's telt by those she's afraid to face up to. 

    Bad Money?
    Bogs Dollox 23rd July 2019 at 00:20

    '…In what way is it possible for the same legal entity to sell assets and the business to itself if it is in liquidation? Mental.'


    Ha ha, BD: two minds with but a single thought!broken heart



    Bad Money?
    Timtim 22nd July 2019 at 19:51

    '…..It's not looking good is it ? '


    The very second that the SFA publicly apologises for the Big Lie, and agree to deny TRFC any claim to the honours and titles of RFC of 1872, and record in the official record of Scottish Football the horrendous cheating of SDM's Rangers and the blight that that odious person inflicted on Scottish Football- that will be the very second when I would be ready to wish TRFC well( well, if King were removed)

    I simply could not be arsed with another sodding Administration, Liquidation, 5-feckin-way agreement and continuing rottenness in Scottish Football.