Green loses bid to have legal costs paid by club - appeal set for 29th January

[forlanssister 3,050]

Don't think section 41 is relevant. I'm not convinced about section 40 but difficult to say without knowing more about it.

 

I think 40 certainly applies but and can see arguments either way on 41.

[pete 2,499]

I think 40 certainly applies but and can see arguments either way on 41.

 

Any chance of putting both sections up so as we all have an idea what it is about?

[boabie 230]

Any chance of putting both sections up so as we all have an idea what it is about?

 

http://www.girlings.com/latest/beware-dealing-individual-directors

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/41

[Bearman 9]

I'm sick of the word 'appeal' !

 

If Charlie loses this...is that the end of it? Can he appeal again?

[boabie 230]

http://www.unlockthelaw.co.uk/News/will-rangers-need-to-pay-charles-greens-legal-fees/1667570745.html

 

" Why Should the Club Pay Green's Legal Fees?

 

Green claims that Rangers are liable for his legal fees on the ground of a contract made whilst he was still with them. Mr Green has stated that his contract of employment entitles him to legal cover both during his time at the club as well as after he had stepped down. Dave King on the other hand has stated that Green approached the club following his arrest in connection with the Sevco acquisition of club assets in 2012 and demanded that the club meet the bill for his legal costs. Green claimed that this was "in respect of his co-operation with Police Scotland in its criminal investigation into his time as an officer of the club".

King claims that he has told Mr Green the club will not be paying his legal costs, and that Greens claim will be "strongly resisted". Mr Green has now approached the court to compel the club to pay up for his legal costs- expected to be more than £500,000.

It is difficult to say how the court is likely to respond to Mr Green's claim. On the one hand, if legal fees in relation to any legal issue arising in connection with his duties whilst at the club, formed part of his contract of employment, the court may decide to compel the club to pay Green's legal fees. However, this will depend on the terms of this agreement and also whether Green is convicted of being involved in criminal activity. Any contract which promises to cover expenses of criminal activity will be void and unenforceable, meaning that he will not be able to rely on the clause to claim his legal fees from the club. Furthermore, certain action such as leaving the club may also make the contract unenforceable - the decision will very much turn on the courts reading of the contract, and the detailed facts of the case. "

[buster. 4,808]

I'm sick of the word 'appeal' !

 

If Charlie loses this...is that the end of it? Can he appeal again?

 

Don't know but I would hope not.

 

This being the time of year for predictions, I'd say it not unlikely that the mouth from Yorkshire becomes 'ill' during 2016 and seeks a doctor's note to give to court.

 

The various appeals might seem to go on forever but time stops for no man and currently at 67 years old, Charles may yet have the word 'appeal' etched on his tombstone.

 

I'm just hoping I live to see the end of all this.

It's got to the stage that I'd die with a smile on my face, if certain outcomes came to pass.

 

...

 

--------------------------------------

 

ps: Mr.Boabie

That article is from September, before the first hearing.

Edited December 17, 2015 by buster.
ps

[Bluedell 5,342]

I think 40 certainly applies but and can see arguments either way on 41.

 

Are you just referring to the legal costs issue? If so, you'll need to explain to me why section 40 applies as I just don't see it. It seems to me more to support Green's argument than the other way around, unless I'm missing something.

 

On section 41, I don't believe the guarantee to meet legal costs falls under a transaction per se, despite the open-ended subsection 7.

[forlanssister 3,050]

Are you just referring to the legal costs issue? If so, you'll need to explain to me why section 40 applies as I just don't see it. It seems to me more to support Green's argument than the other way around, unless I'm missing something.

 

Was the agreement made in good faith? given Green's knowledge of events I cannot see it was made in good faith.

 

 

On section 41, I don't believe the guarantee to meet legal costs falls under a transaction per se, despite the open-ended subsection 7.

 

I'm not sure or not whether it is a transaction or not either hence my doubts.

[buster. 4,808]

Was the agreement made in good faith? .....

 

I'd agree that it's very much a question that has to be asked.

[Bluedell 5,342]

Was the agreement made in good faith? given Green's knowledge of events I cannot see it was made in good faith.

 

Interesting view. It seems to me that the section relates to dealing with third parties and not a director or employee, where there is a different relationship. It refers to a transaction which I don't believe applies (see below) Green is "is presumed to have acted in good faith unless the contrary is proved" and as he has not been found guilty of anything yet I doubt that it can be relied on.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure or not whether it is a transaction or not either hence my doubts.

A transaction would normally be a purchase or sale of goods or services for cash but being an employee would not normally fall under that description. If he were to buy from or sell something to the club (eg buy a car) then that would be a transaction, but the provision of a guarantee would not be.

 

The provision of the guarantee would not be disclosed as a related party transaction in the accounts, for example.