Court action: Injunction granted and RFC to pay £20K costs

[Little General 80]

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/ashleys-injunction-stopping-rangers-revealing-details-of-contracts-210099n.128771431

 

MIKE Ashley's injunction stopping Rangers from blowing the lid off certain controversial details of contracts with Sports Direct has no teeth in Scotland,

 

according to one of Scotland's leading lawyers.

 

Sports Direct won the gagging order against Rangers at the Chancery Division of London's High Court to prevent secret information being revealed at the

 

shareholders meeting called by Mr Ashley's Mash Holdings firm to be held at Ibrox on Friday.

 

Sports Direct argued that some information had already been leaked to the press and was concerned that confidential information relating to the

 

commercial links, including the controversial joint venture retail deal, between the Ashley-controlled sports group and Rangers would be divulged at

 

Friday's meeting.

 

Rangers' lawyers said there was no evidence as to the actual source of any leaks and said the injunction was unnecessary as there was no indication

 

from the club directors of any intention to breach undertakings of confidentiality,

 

A judge ruled: "I am satisfied there is a real risk of disclosure tomorrow of confidential information".

 

Mr Ashley's sports firm is understood to have been awarded costs of £20,000 at the Royal Courts of Justice in the injunction hearing.

 

But Austin Lafferty, a past president of the Law Society of Scotland said that the injunction secured in England is null and void unless Sports Direct

 

extend its reach through the Court of Session in Scotland.

 

"I am clear that a High Court injunction does not extend to Scotland, unless a subsequent procedure is undertaken (in Scotland)," he said.

 

"They should maybe have done it in both courts or started it in the Court of Session.

 

"I am still astounded they don't seem to remember these things."

 

In June, 2011 sister paper, the Sunday Herald named Ryan Giggs as one of the celebrities whose identities were protected by so-called superinjunctions after the paper argued it was not bound by an English court's injunction. The paper argued that it could name Giggs because his lawyers had not sought a

 

gagging order in a Scottish court.

 

The High Court move came after Mr Ashley forced an extraordinary general meeting to force Rangers to pay back a £5 million emergency loan given to

 

the club in January.

 

Rangers responded in a statement by threatening to disclose certain details of the Rangers Retail joint venture deal set up by former Rangers chief executive Charles Green including a breakdown of the income to the club, at Friday's Ibrox showdown meeting.

 

But the Rangers International Football Club plc board, also noted that directors would have to be "mindful" of confidentiality provisions that Mash sought

 

to enforce.

 

The Rangers Supporters Trust, which has called for the stepping up of a boycott of official Rangers merchandise in protest at secrecy over the Ashley retail deal, said they hoped the board would still be able to divulge new details of the agreements at Friday's meeting, that was safe to present to shareholders.

 

An RST spokesman said: "If they can give us a breakdown of the financial information, for instance, from Rangers Retail, then it is not a huge leap to work out how bad the deal is."

 

Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley sent his lawyers to court after the Daily Record newspaper carried reports of what the judge was told was secret

 

information relating to commercial links between Sports Direct and Rangers which, it was claimed in court, must have come from board members.

 

Mrs Justice Asplin granted the injunction, saying if a breach of confidentiality occurred it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to quantify and

 

compensate.

 

David Quest QC, appearing for Sports Direct, said Rangers were offering an undertaking to stop disclosure, but there was a dispute over the scope of the

 

offer.

 

He said Rangers chairman Dave King was quoted in a newspaper that he planned to use Friday's meeting "to blow the lid off secret details of the

 

contracts handed to Ashley's retail company Sports Direct by previous Rangers (chief executive) Charles Green".

 

If confidential information did come out at the meeting "there is no putting the worms back in the can", Mr Quest told the judge.

 

Louis Mably argued for Rangers that the claim was "entirely speculative".

 

But the judge ruled the "balance of convenience" was in favour of granting the injunction.

 

Since the loan was agreed in January, Mr Ashley, who is Newcastle United owner has been the "ultimate controlling party" of Rangers Retail, which

 

handles the club's merchandising and stores. Papers confirmed the switch was made from the previous controllers, RIFC plc as one of the conditions of

 

the loan.

 

Rangers declined to comment. Sports Direct were approached for comment.

Reply With Quote

[Frankie 8,157]

Ashley also obtained an interim interdict from the Court of Session in Edinburgh yesterday so I doubt there will be much information of note released at the EGM.

 

In fact, I suspect the meeting will be opened to give details of the business then closed again after any in-situ vote. Should only last a matter of minutes.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Frankie

[der Berliner 3,263]

So in essence, the "English" injunction does not hold in Scotland unless it is extended via a Scottish Court/judge? All this English/Scottish contracts/locations/law stuff does only one thing, complicate matters and hands lawyers our money ...

[Scott7 5,199]

Tell't ye that yesterday.

[RabiDuck 89]

Naive idea, potentially, and I'm sure someone will tell me why it would have been a bad idea, but as much of this game is PR would it not have been a good result for RIFC to turn up to the court hearing (their 1 representative against SDs 5) and simply say "yeah, we know what's in the contract and wont say anything we shouldn't" the fact that SD took it to court shows the public they're worried that there may be something that could be said, but also makes a mockery of SD for bringing the case in the first place? This stuff will surely leak out eventually, it just needs the right people to get hold of the content. How that might happen I don't know, someone on the inside that passes it on without being traced would be the obvious option.

[Frankie 8,157]

Naive idea, potentially, and I'm sure someone will tell me why it would have been a bad idea, but as much of this game is PR would it not have been a good result for RIFC to turn up to the court hearing (their 1 representative against SDs 5) and simply say "yeah, we know what's in the contract and wont say anything we shouldn't" the fact that SD took it to court shows the public they're worried that there may be something that could be said, but also makes a mockery of SD for bringing the case in the first place? This stuff will surely leak out eventually, it just needs the right people to get hold of the content. How that might happen I don't know, someone on the inside that passes it on without being traced would be the obvious option.

 

That's essentially what happened mate.

 

Apparently the injunction is only temporary and there will be a fuller hearing on this in the coming weeks.

[RabiDuck 89]

That's essentially what happened mate.

 

Apparently the injunction is only temporary and there will be a fuller hearing on this in the coming weeks.

 

Frankie, so basically, we paid £20k in costs to turn up and confirm that we don't intend to breach confidentiality and then be told we can't breach confidentiality? And it took 5 SD chaps to do this?

[Frankie 8,157]

Frankie, so basically, we paid £20k in costs to turn up and confirm that we don't intend to breach confidentiality and then be told we can't breach confidentiality? And it took 5 SD chaps to do this?

 

That's correct.

[RabiDuck 89]

That's correct.

 

Holy crap!

[Zappa 0]

Just imagine what we could have done with that £20k! We could have paid Jig for another 10 days!