Court told public must hear details of SPFL conduct and Dundee vote in Hearts & Partick case

Hearts officials at Tynecastle are monitoring the Court of Session case.Hearts officials at Tynecastle are monitoring the Court of Session case.
Hearts officials at Tynecastle are monitoring the Court of Session case.
Top lawyer says issues are of “significant public interest”

A lawyer representing Hearts and Partick Thistle told the Court of Session on Thursday that the public must hear details of the Scottish Professional Football League’s conduct, specifically around Dundee’s vote on ending the 2019/20 season early.

David Thomson QC said issues in case were “matters of significant public interest” and insisted it should therefore be heard by the court. SPFL lawyers want the matter reverted back to the Scottish Football Association for arbitration.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Hearts and Thistle lodged a petition to have their relegations overruled in court or they want £8million and £2m respectively in compensation.

Mr Thomson cited the debate around Dundee’s controversial vote on ending the campaign as one of many key points in the case.

The Tayside club were allowed to change their ‘no’ vote to ‘yes’ when the SPFL proposed ending the campaign in April.

The SPFL’s lawyer, Gerry Moynihan QC, stated during Wednesday’s hearing that Dundee’s ‘no’ vote was received by the league at 4.48pm on April 10 – the deadline day for the ballot.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

That was changed to ‘yes’ five days later and became the casting vote in consigning Hearts, Partick and Stranraer to relegation.

Mr Thomson also questioned a letter sent by the SPFL to all 42 member clubs last week, which allegedly encouraged teams to oppose Hearts’ and Partick’s case if they wanted details of the league’s response to the court action.

He told the judge, Lord Alistair Clark QC: “The matters raised in this petition involve matters of significant and legitimate public interest and concern.

“The petitioners, the respondent clubs and the league itself have been the subject of legitimate public and press comment.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“It is my submission on behalf of the petitioners that these matters ought to be determined in a public forum, namely a court, because of the public interest that attaches to them.”

Mr Thomson added: “It was not appropriate for the SPFL to indicate [on June 26] that, on the basis of an apparent request by member clubs to see the pleadings, that they should choose to interpret that request for the pleadings as being the same as a desire to oppose the petition.

“And, on that basis, saying to member clubs that it was necessary that they effectively join forces to oppose the petition in order to see the pleadings.

“That type of episode is again a matter of significant concern. It is a matter of legitimate interest, which strongly favours the hearing of the disputes between these parties in a public court, rather than by way of arbitration.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Lord Clark asked if confirmation that Dundee’s ‘no’ vote was received by the SPFL at 4.48pm on April 10 accelerates proceedings.

Mr Thomson said: “What is actually contained in the answers is an admission that it was sent at a certain time, Mr Moynihan [SPFL lawyer] put it yesterday that it was received at a certain time. It is to be welcomed that that admission was made.

“The mere fact that proper admissions have been made doesn’t really tip the balance in favour of arbitration.”

Mr Thomson added: “It is also worth observing, so far as questions of public interest are concerned, that the whole debacle which took place in relation to the Dundee vote is again a matter of significant public interest and concern.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“It is certainly of significant concern to the petitioners.”

Mr Thomson continued: “We don’t know the truth of what is in the SPFL’s answers but we are entitled to find out what the documents show about it.”

Mr Thomson indicated he may call witnesses if the case proceeded in court but felt that the SPFL documents would uncover much of the required information.

“The concern of the petitioners is not to have some kind of public inquiry,” he stated. “The focus of their case is very largely upon the documents, and what the documents establish as to the unfairly prejudicial conduct upon which they found.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

He added: “The Dundee vote and all the communications between Mr Doncaster [SPFL chief executive] and Mr Nelms [Dundee chief executive], that’s the kind of thing that might be the subject of evidence.”

Hearts and Partick want the case to proceed quickly to a full hearing in the Court of Session, with the new Scottish football season due to kick off on August 1.

Garry Borland QC, acting for promoted clubs Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers, answered Thomson by reiterating his point from Wednesday.

He stressed that if the matter is not dismissed, then arbitration through the SFA is the way forward because that is what is stated in rule 99 of the SFA’s articles of association.

The court will reconvene on Friday at 10am.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

A message from the editor: Thank you for reading this story on our website. While I have your attention, I also have an important request to make of you. In order for us to continue to provide high quality and trusted local news on this free-to-read site, I am asking you to also please purchase a copy of our newspaper. Our journalists are highly trained and our content is independently regulated by IPSO to some of the highest standards in the world. The dramatic events of 2020 are having a major impact on many of our local valued advertisers and consequently the advertising that we receive. We are now more reliant than ever on you helping us to provide you with news by buying a copy of our newspaper. Thank you. Joy Yates, Editorial Director.

Related topics:
Dare to be Honest
Follow us
©National World Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.Cookie SettingsTerms and ConditionsPrivacy notice