ty fow

I do indeed assert that Paul Gilroy KC is incorrect - Man City are unlikely to even be heard at the High Court. Here’s why… Disciplinary proceedings are conducted under Section W of the rules. A Commission’s award can be appealed at an Appeal Board under Section W. Before Man City can take any matter to the High Court, they must exhaust arbitral appeal / review paths, per section 70(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996. The rules allow for such an arbitral appeal or review of a Section W proceeding under Section X arbitration. So they must pursue this route first. Post Section X arbitration, the rules explicitly prohibit appeal routes to the High Court under s.69 of the Arbitration Act (appealing questions of law). s.69 is optional and can be excluded by contract. s.67 (appeals on jurisdiction) and s.68 (appeals for serious irregularity of procedure) are permitted at the High Court though. The reality is s.67 is a non-starter. The rules were constructed for this very purpose and Man City has already challenged jurisdiction on this matter at the High Court where they got a slapping. s.68 is the plausible route, which is why Gilroy called it out explicitly. So how could Man City get the High Court to actually hear the case rather than risk it being struck out or a summary judgment being issued (which is what the Premier League would demand)? Man City would have to show two things in relation to the Section X arbitration: 1) Identify one of nine categories of serious irregularity in s.68(2) that occurred, supported by specific facts. 2) Explain how the irregularity caused, or will cause, substantial injustice to City. Of the nine categories of serious irregularity, only four are conceivable in this specific situation: s.68(2)(a) Procedural unfairness. For example, the tribunal refused to hear material submissions. s.68(2)(b) Excess of powers. The tribunal purported to make an order it had no authority to make. (this is different from incorrectly exercising a power in its authority). s.68(2)(c) Breach of agreed procedure. The tribunal disregarded a mandatory procedural safeguard governing the arbitration. s.68(2)(d) Failure to address an issue. The tribunal failed to determine a material, separately identifiable issue, such as whether publication could lawfully occur before a Section W liability appeal. So the High Court judge would have to believe, based on specific facts in Man City’s submission, that one of these four serious irregularities could have happened. I’d put money on either Lord Dyson or Lord Neuberger chairing the Section X arbitration. These are former Supreme Court justices. Man City would have to have some pretty compelling facts to get a High Court judge to believe such serious irregularities occurred under their watch, which they won’t have if those irregularities didn’t happen. This matter isn’t getting decided in the High Court unless a judge far more experienced and capable than a High Court judge makes a significant and highly prejudicial error in procedure. That is just extremely unlikely.