garty back in front of the beak...

[thebish]

http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... are_btn_fb

sounds like it might be a biggie...

Phil Gartside, the Bolton Wanderers chairman, has been summonsed to appear in front of magistrates to answer allegations of perjury and fraud, along with the club’s former manager Sammy Lee, the ex-player Gavin McCann and some of the more influential agents in the business, in what could be, if it proceeds, one of the biggest court cases of its kind in the sport.

[malcd1]

Oh dear. Doesn't look good for any of them.

[chester white]

Civil prosecution? Does that have to pass any sort of threshold test to get to court?

[Bruce Rioja]

I wonder what Uncle Eddie's making of this?!

[Prufrock]

Without any idea as to where we're at its meaningless. If it reads as I think it does and he's a wacko and they've all only just been served then it will go away quietly. If on the other hand either side have asked the cps to have a look (and the defences all would do if we're at that point) and they've decided to let it carry on, then it will have passed the same test as a cps case does to get to court. So could be bad.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Without any idea as to where we're at its meaningless. If it reads as I think it does and he's a wacko and they've all only just been served then it will go away quietly. If on the other hand either side have asked the cps to have a look (and the defences all would do if we're at that point) and they've decided to let it carry on, then it will have passed the same test as a cps case does to get to court. So could be bad.

I was sued by a crazy woman along with many other defendants as part of a civil suit. It went away quietly. Is this a second private prosecution, Pru? If so, the judge may find him vexacious.

[Lord Kangana]

while Bolton, the club, have also been summonsed to appear in court next month in relation to allegations of making “numerous false and representational contracts” in June and July 2007.

I would say this sentence is the more worrying for us.

[jaffka]

This is a private criminal prosecution, the previous case which failed was civil where the plaintiff attempted to sue for money missed out on a transfer deal. That has been discussed elsewhere.

As the case has been brought to the magistrates court, the cps could now be contacted by the private prosecutor and be invited to take over the prosecution. If that happens, then an understanding of how strong the case is could be gained as the cps have a threshold test to decide on the likelihood of a prosecution succeeding.

This matter could have already been investigated by the police and refered to the cps it also might not have.

I would imagine that the main aim for the person bringing this action, particularly against Gartside, who is one of a number of defendants, is that if he is found guilty then it could prevent him from being the chairman of the club.

It is obvious that care is needed on discussing this case as it's closer to home and the person bringing the action appears to be quite open to using the courts to resolve perceived problems.

[a1]

every time a football agent loses money , an angel plays the world's saddest song on the world's smallest violin

[TonyDomingos]

Club statement released this evening. In short, we're innocent and McGill is a sore loser.

Club statement
Posted: Tue 20 Jan 2015
Author: @OfficialBWFC
image: http://www.bwfc.co.uk/cms_images/macron ... 78x359.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Official club statement relating to allegations made by Mr McGill against the club and individuals
The current allegations appear to be another attempt by Mr McGill to abuse the court process to resurrect a matter that has already been judicially determined.

As of yet full details of the current allegations have not been provided by the prosecutor Mr McGill, who appears to be handling the case personally by way of a private prosecution, but the club understands that the current allegations relate to the same set of commercial circumstances back in 2007 which were widely reported last year and which were found to have no legal merit.

The club, its officers and past employees have always strenuously rejected all claims by Mr McGill of any wrongdoing.

The club and its officers/employees were completely vindicated by the prior court proceedings and further to this the claimant was refused permission to appeal by the trial judge. The claimant has renewed his application for permission to appeal against certain of the club’s former co-defendants (related to the football agency SEM) but is not pursuing an appeal against the club or any of its (former) officers/employees.

In 2013 our lawyers made an application to strike out the claimant’s then claims and were substantially successful as a number of the allegations were found to have no reasonable grounds. As a result, a costs award was made in the club’s favour and, following non-payment by the claimant, a statutory demand for those costs was raised.

The remainder of the claimants’ claims (as amended) were heard at trial in Manchester in 2014 where they were dismissed in their entirety and a further costs order was made in favour of the defendants. Again, following non-payment, a further statutory demand was raised.

Last week an application by Mr McGill to set aside the two statutory demands was dismissed and a further costs award was made in favour of the club.

Mr McGill has so far failed to satisfy the statutory demands and further actions to recover the costs will now be taken.

The club believes that these further allegations are malicious and vexatious and will defend accordingly.

Read more at http://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/article/club ... CYVZ3Ac.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bruce Rioja]

Last week an application by Mr McGill to set aside the two statutory demands was dismissed and a further costs award was made in favour of the club.

His fecking meter's running, the lad!

[thebish]

as denials and rebuttals go - that one is pretty comprehensive!

[Montreal Wanderer]

McGill may be on pretty thin ice.

[TANGODANCER]

^
Hell hath no fury like an agent deprived of his cut....

[Hoboh]

McGill may be on pretty thin ice.

I think he actually forgot to take the temperature

[Gravedigger]

McGill may be on pretty thin ice.

Either on thin ice or thinks he can walk on water. If this is deemed vexatious I would imagine it'll cost him more than an arm and a leg. He'll have to get a proper job.

[Bruce Rioja]

If one of you legal bods would be so good as to help me understand this (for free, you 4uckers )

Shirley, in the event of perjury I'd have thought it would be the crown that would bring charges, not a private individual.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-31626754" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Prufrock]

It's rare, but private individuals can still pursue them.

The CPS have the right to take it over and carry on; take it over and stop it; or leave it as it is and let it be done privately.

In order for the CPS to prosecute a case it has to pass their test. The test is that it is both in the public interest to prosecute, and that there is enough evidence that the prosecutor is satisfied the court would be more likely than not to convict.

Defence or prosecution can ask the CPS to review it and decide which of the above steps to take. If they're asked to review it and it doesn't meet their test they'll stop it. If it does, they'll let it carry on privately unless there's a reason for them to take over.

Is a little concerning it that I wouldn't have thought it would get this far without the CPS reviewing it and deciding that it meets their test. Don't know, though.

[Gary the Enfield]

It's rare, but private individuals can still pursue them.

The CPS have the right to take it over and carry on; take it over and stop it; or leave it as it is and let it be done privately.

In order for the CPS to prosecute a case it has to pass their test. The test is that it is both in the public interest to prosecute, and that there is enough evidence that the prosecutor is satisfied the court would be more likely than not to convict.

Defence or prosecution can ask the CPS to review it and decide which of the above steps to take. If they're asked to review it and it doesn't meet their test they'll stop it. If it does, they'll let it carry on privately unless there's a reason for them to take over.

Is a little concerning it that I wouldn't have thought it would get this far without the CPS reviewing it and deciding that it meets their test. Don't know, though.

Strikes me certain individuals can't take no for an answer. After Gartside's pretty unequivocal rebuttal I'd say this particular episode is going nowhere too.

[Lord Kangana]

If one of you legal bods would be so good as to help me understand this (for free, you 4uckers )

Shirley, in the event of perjury I'd have thought it would be the crown that would bring charges, not a private individual.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-31626754" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As explained to me, Bruce, you can do either or both.