Mail Online

Special report on City’s fight in high court

The Mail on Sunday had the sole reporter in court. Only now can his dramatic dispatch be published

By Daniel Matthews

THE doors to Court 73 stand at the end of a short, sparsely furnished corridor. A wooden bench stretches down one wall, signs remind visitors to keep a social distance. Staff need not have worried. It is mid-morning after the night before — English football is still nursing sore heads and hoarse voices after a 2-0 victory over Germany at Wembley.

This corridor is deserted, even as the country’s leading club prepares to flex its muscles and clear its throat. Indeed, there is nothing to indicate the bitter fight bubbling behind those double doors. And that is exactly how the two sides want it to remain.

This corner of the Royal Courts of Justice lies beyond a layer of security and a warren of darkened passageways. Round blind corners, up flights of stairs, down more identi-corridors. Until you reach East Block. Even then, Court 73 remains shut. No access to the public or press, it warns. No fanfare either.

It is an unremarkable, rather eerie setting for a battle involving two of this country’s sporting behemoths.

For years, only a few crumbs of detail emerged about the secret battle between Manchester City and the Premier League. Behind closed doors, the club are still being investigated for violating financial fair play rules more than two years after the league began their probe.

The investigation was launched in December 2018 on the back of ‘Football Leaks’ claims published by the German magazine, Der Spiegel, which alleged a swathe of irregularities by City. They included disguising direct investment by owner Sheik Mansour as sponsorship income.

The club always insisted that the material was taken ‘ out of context’ and were ‘purportedly hacked or stolen’, adding that ‘the attempt to damage the club’s reputation is organised and clear’.

They nevertheless refused to hand over certain documents, prompting the Premier League to begin arbitration in an attempt to force their hand.

Since then, in the secrecy of Britain’s High Court, City have been fighting that process, too. They disputed whether the arbitrators had jurisdiction to hear the Premier League’s claim. They even suggested ‘apparent bias’, claiming they would be denied a fair hearing because the arbitrators lacked impartiality.

They lost but, by late June, the two sides shared common ground: both wanted to keep more information from prying eyes and ears. They had largely succeeded until March, when the judge who dismissed City’s case ruled that the public ought to know her findings. Details of the arbitration dispute had hitherto remained hidden.

That is why City ended up here on the Strand, pleading with Britain’s top legal brains to change tack.

That is why The Mail on Sunday are here, too. After our own lengthy battle, this newspaper won the exclusive right to hear City’s appeal. Back in April, our reporter Nick Harris discovered this twist in the club’s clandestine battle with the league. And so began our burrowing down legal rabbit holes in search of open justice. I t began with at t empts to persuade the judiciary to allow us to write what we knew. Then went letters to City and the Premier League with a simple request: let us see the details of this case and the arguments on either side — even on the promise they will not be published. That would allow us to decide whether to intervene and fight for transparency.

Unsurprisingly, those requests were refused. But then, with barely a day’s notice, The Mail on Sunday got wind of this latest hearing. Off went an 11th-hour application to send a barrister who could fight our corner to allow a reporter to listen in.

That sparked another anxious wait. This time on the East Block bench — no other journalists, no more i nformation while l egal arguments continued inside the locked courtroom.

Eventually, though, a glint of light. The door to Court 73 swings open. A clerk of the court emerges, to serve a reminder that nothing seen or heard can be published. Not yet, anyway.

He leads the way into a courtroom glaringly lopsided. In this fight for a last-minute reprieve, City have

It is a matter of public concern so little progress has been made in the investigation after two and a half years, in which the club has twice been champions

wheeled out the heavy artillery: the left side of the benches is awash with gowns and sharp suits — half a dozen barristers working under the same shade of sky blue. The right flank is virtually deserted, save for our barrister and solicitors on a watching brief from the Premier League.

Behind them, a deserted gallery of taped-off seats. This is our vantage point as Lord Pannick QC, one of the most brilliant advocates of his generation, leads the City attack. The Premier League giants turned to the 65-year-old last year, when they fought a £26million fine and two-year ban from the Champions

League all the way to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. At a cost of £20,000 a day, it is said. Over two and a half decades, Pannick has acted in many of this country’s most high-profile cases. In recent years, he twice defeated the Government over Brexit on behalf of Gina Miller.

Today he is flanked by Paul Harris QC, who also led City’s appeal to CAS and who has worked with Liverpool, Manchester United, Tottenham, Chelsea, Arsenal, Saracens and the RFU.

Already, they are one down, having lost the argument to keep The Mail on Sunday locked out. Now comes the crucial second leg: to overturn the decision to publish details of this case.

City insist their appeal has no effect on the Premier League’s investigation, or any possible punishment. It concerns only the privacy of the case and, Pannick claims, there is ‘no suggestion to the contrary’ by the league itself.

If the presence of Pannick, flanked by a small legion of silk, illustrated City’s financial might — and their hunger to keep a lid on this affair — the three judges staring him down told their own tale.

Traditionally, only the most complex cases come before the

Master of the Rolls, the second most senior figure in the British justice system. Here, Sir Geoffrey Vos sits in the middle of three red chairs. On his right, Sir Julian Flaux, the chancellor of the High Court. On the other side, Lord Justice Males, an arbitration expert who spent more than 30 years at the bar.

For nearly two hours, they listen as Pannick’s round glasses and sharp mind tried to bend this case back in City’s favour. The QC entwines authority with deference as he politely argues that Mrs Justice Moulder ‘erred’ by ordering the publication of her judgments.

With no one in the opposite corner, only the judges can challenge Pannick over nuances of law and legal precedent. The sparring remains cordial enough, even as City’s case comes to the boil. Even as Vos appears particularly unsympathetic to the club’ s plea for privacy.

‘You are bemoaning reality,’ he tells Pannick. ‘This is a matter of the greatest public interest.’

City had launched several challenges to the Premier League’s attempt to obtain documents and information. They lost on all counts and now the club want to keep that secret too. ‘ What the court is saying,’ Pannick argues, ‘is that the price [of bringing the challenges] might be publication.’

Moreover, publication would spark extensive press coverage of what has happened — and any possible sanctions — in ‘[what] would ordinarily be a private process.’

That, City claim, will make it more difficult to reach a resolution without more arbitration. They point out that the Premier League would also prefer details are kept under wraps, even if they want the power to refer to this judgment in any disputes with other clubs. Or, as Flaux puts it: ‘They are trying to have their cake and eat it.’

‘Absolute privacy’ in a field like football is almost impossible, City are told. Particularly when the public have known about this investigation for years. Flaux argues they are in fact ‘lucky’ there hasn’t been more press coverage.

BUT Pannick strikes back. In cases like these, he argues, the scales of open justice must tip in favour of confidentiality over public interest. A judge has to consider ‘ primarily the interests of parties involved’ over third parties. ‘Businesses have to be confident their privacy will be respected,’ he tells the court.

Eventually, Pannick says City want publication to be stayed until the end of the investigation and any disciplinary process.

Before long, the three judges climb out of their seats and exit stage right. After the doors close, City wigs began to shake. They sense their fate is sealed.

When the court rises again a few minutes later, however, Vos delivers only a stay of execution. Instead, he says, the judges will retire to consider their verdict.

When that comes nine days later, the judgment of City is damning.

The final paragraph, written by Lord Justice Males, delivers a stiletto to the heart of City’s case. ‘ The club has been anxious to emphasise before us that “the arbitral proceedings relate to an ongoing and confidential investigatory and disciplinary process which is still in its early stages”, and that it may be that no charges will ever be brought against it,’ he writes.

‘While that may be true, it seems to me that this is, if anything, a factor which tells in favour of publication. This is an investigation which commenced in December 2018.

‘It is surprising, and a matter of legitimate public concern, that so little progress has been made after two and a half years — during which, it may be noted, the club has twice been crowned as Premier League champions.’

City In The Dock

en-gb

2021-07-25T07:00:00.0000000Z

2021-07-25T07:00:00.0000000Z

https://mailonline.pressreader.com/article/284296777988842

dmg media (UK)