RIFC v Sports Direct: No contempt of court - injuction to be discussed in January

[calscot 0]

I don't really understand the complexities but surely you can only be in contempt of court if you did something deliberately or negligently, but breaching the agreement accidentally or unknowingly could be done without actual contempt of the ruling?

 

Just trying to make sense of it...

[Frankie 8,151]

I don't really understand the complexities but surely you can only be in contempt of court if you did something deliberately or negligently, but breaching the agreement accidentally or unknowingly could be done without actual contempt of the ruling?

 

Just trying to make sense of it...

 

Yeah, that seems fair and I think the SD counsel did highlight the second part of that point.

 

I'm hoping the actual legality of the injunction may be more of an issue though given the alleged signatory from RIFC.

[buster. 4,808]

Have to say that this judge certainly did his research regards the noise behind the bare facts, to the point of apparently being aware of what DK was saying to the press at what I presume was lunch.

 

He seemed to already know what the real Ashely agenda was from the off and according to the tweets coming in, almost enjoyed goading and ridiculing the heavy and numerous SD legal team because he knew they had nothing substantial to offer.

 

However DK is prone to sometimes say a lttle more than is required or today was perhaps a little hasty given how this judge would seem to operate.

 

A good result today pending tomorrows full judgement,........ where I hope costs are addressed and in our favour. If they were it would be the best GIRFUY to Ashely because it would mean his objective of harming our cashflow would have failed.

[calscot 0]

It seems for a substantial and expensive legal team, they missed a couple of tricks re getting DK and maybe also JW on the stand... Don't think it would have changed the verdict though. There wasn't a case to be answered.

[buster. 4,808]

It seems for a substantial and expensive legal team, they missed a couple of tricks re getting DK and maybe also JW on the stand... Don't think it would have changed the verdict though. There wasn't a case to be answered.

 

I don't think they wanted DK given an opportunity to speak in the witness box.

[colinstein 294]

I don't think they wanted DK given an opportunity to speak in the witness box.

 

presumably telling the truth in a court would supersede any gagging order so Rangers' lawyers would only have to ask King the right questions

Edited December 10, 2015 by colinstein

[buster. 4,808]

presumably telling the truth in a court would supersede any gagging order so Rangers' lawyers would only have to ask King the right questions

 

Some kind of reporting restrictions may have been put in place for any detail deemed to be covered by gagging order but there is a lot more that could have been covered.

 

It may have served as a lead in to the injunction hearing.

[buster. 4,808]

Lifted from FF posted by 'johnkp'

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

 

Here's a transcript of what went on in the court today, to save people going through the whole thread. It's a great read.

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE - CHANCERY DIVISION

 

COURT 21

Before MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH

Thursday, 10 December 2015

At 1030hrs

 

FOR COMMITTAL

HC-2015-002185 Sports Direct International Plc v Rangers International Football Club

 

INTERIM HEARINGS LIST

 

Same v Same

 

SD QC - "SD seeking £200k in damages but aren't pursuing the matter today."

 

Judge - "Why aren't damages an adequate remedy in this case?".

 

SD QC - "Damages are not an issue."

 

Judge - "It's not bilateral is it? Your client isn't covered by confidentiality? To get an injunction you have to come to court and the threshold is that it is a genuine secret. Just because something is labelled confidential does not make it so.

Is your client interested in having a relationship with Mr King, or does he just want to drive him into the ground? Do you think the court should grant an injunction to stop people commenting on information in the public domain? I'm not going to send someone to prison on the basis of an inference."

 

Judge - "On the issue of SD "bobble hats" with f*** King on them - "How does that help?"

 

Judge - "How do you prove it was an accurate account of what he said? It wouldn't be the first time the press didn't report in full."

 

SD QC asks for part of the hearing to be heard in private to preserve confidentiality, and that any confidential documents mentioned today remain so.

 

Press asked to sign a confidentiality undertaking on said documents.

 

Judge - "I thought the way to deal with it is me to make a confidentiality order that nobody is to report any document outside this court. How can I read them if that is to be the case. If I read them, they are in the public domain."

 

Continued debate about which documents are confidential and which are already in public domain.

 

Rangers QC - "We have no desire to render public what is confidential."

 

Judge now to read Rangers' defence as confidentiality debate continues.

 

Rangers QC - "No application was made to disallow public inspection of documents."

 

Judge - "It can be retrospectively applied."

 

Judge - "Disclosure of documents at general meetings of Rangers shareholders may not be a breach of the confidentiality undertaking."

 

Judge rises to allow press to consider whether to sign document to be bound by confidentiality on certain case documents.

 

Assembled media and public have signed a confidentiality undertaking on reference to certain documents in court. Dave King offers to sign the document. He's informed he's not a member of the public so does not have to do so.

 

Judge passes confidentiality order. Tells press they will go to jail if it is broken.

 

Rangers QC - "Mike Ashley was repaid his £5m loan yesterday. Securities will not be released until final working day of this year."

 

SD QC - "Our group has been providing loan facilities. The second tranche of £5m not drawn down. There has been a commercial relationship between SD & Rangers for some years, including a joint venture company (Rangers Retail Ltd) which sells Rangers-branded goods under licence."

 

SD QC unaware that the £5m had been repaid.

 

Court told confidentiality agreement was signed by former RIFC director Sandy Easdale.

 

Judge - "Your case is that Mr Ashley can tell the press anything he likes about a meeting. Mr King can't acknowledge he went to a meeting. You are claiming that Dave King had authority to speak on behalf of RIFC. Directors would have to have given permission. The Sky Sports interview was about Mr King, his status in South Africa and his 32,000 or so bottles of wine. Gary Player also mentioned. You have to establish he was authorised to make the statement by Rangers Directors. If you don't prove the company expressly authorised King to make this statement, your case is dead in the water."

 

SD QC - "Our opposition is that Mr King had knowledge of significance of the order."

 

Judge - "A director is not always speaking for the company when speaking to the media."

 

Dave King has given the court an affidavit saying he was unaware of details of confidentiality agreement when he spoke to Sky Sports.

 

SD QC - "We do not believe Dave King's affidavit."

 

Judge - "The argument must be that details of confidential discussion were put in public domain."

 

SD QC - "Ignorance of the order itself is no defence."

 

Judge - " Mr King may be liable if he knew the order and acted on the impression he was speaking on behalf of Rangers. You are complaining he has discussed content of private discussion. Where is it on the interview? Mr King may be guilty of contempt, but that does not mean Rangers are, as there no proof that Board authorised his statement."

 

King's affidavit he says he did not fully read the order and did not believe in banned him discussing "the fact of meetings".

 

SD QC shows the court an e-mail from Rangers Secretary James Blair about confidentiality which proves that King has been untruthful in his affidavit. It can hardly be clearer - he sent an email acknowledging.

 

Judge - "King said on oath he didn't read injunction in detail. Do I disbelieve him? SD haven't proved to a criminal standard, that this extended to the discussion of the meeting."

 

King statement read out - "I did not review the injunction in detail at that time as James Blair had provided a restriction in the body of the email."

 

Judge - "The consequences of going to prison are quite severe for a successful businessman like Mr King. He could say goodbye going to the United States, for example, for the foreseeable future. Since SD must prove Mr King wilfully disregarded the order, they should have asked for him to be cross-examined in court."

 

SD QC - "One could hardly look for clearer evidence in him having admitted he received an important email headlined "URGENT: Draft order. It is wholly implausible Mr King didn't understand the email.

 

Judge - "It amazes me how people act in this regard these days."

 

SD QC - "Each Director of Rangers was sent a copy of the Court Order. We only have to show King's "knowledge of the order" - not his "understanding of it".

 

Judge - "Mr King was never evasive. SD made a conscious decision not to serve him out of jurisdiction (in South Africa)."

 

SD QC - "Did King act in a way which was breach of order? And if so, was he doing so on behalf of Rangers?"

 

Judge - "You have to persuade me he was in breach because he discussed the contents of certain discussions."

 

SD QC - "There was a meeting on 12 June between King and Ashley which should not have been disclosed to media."

 

Judge - "Did SD leak details of this meeting to press? Did Mr Ashley say so on oath ?"

 

Rangers QC produces emails showing that King asked SD to join him in issuing a 'joint statement" over June meeting. In a further email, King blames "The leak of our meeting by the Ashley camp." SD QC denies that was what occurred.

 

Judge - "If you want an injunction, you have to come here with clean hands."

 

Judge - "I've still not seen the contents you say were discussed in the Sky TV interview."

 

SD QC - "I'm coming to that. There's an allegation by Mr King that we leaked it. There is no o evidence to that effect".

 

Judge - "Mike Ashley hasn't disproved that. I am having difficulty with the argument that mention of discussions breaches agreement. I have yet to hear an argument regarding the content."

 

Judge - "What's the cost of this exercise so far? It's nigh on £400k for both sides isn't it?"

 

SD QC - "What prompted these proceedings was what was going to happen at the EGM."

 

Rangers QC - "The EGM was called to call for repayment of loan."

 

Judge - "What did you call an EGM for then? Rangers point out it was called by MASH Holdings, not Sports Direct. It's alright for you to call an EGM for you to discuss the loan? How would that work? Mr King couldn't discuss the loan. Why did Ashley do that if not simply to cause trouble? Why did Mr Ashley arrange a meeting with Mr King on same day as the EGM], several hundred miles apart. Which one was he supposed to go to?"

 

Judge - "Mr King did not criticise Ashley in the TV interview. What's the harm in saying in interview it was a "good meeting"? You come to court saying this is all very important. I'm trying desperately to find out what is so damaging about Mr King referring to a meeting. There's no point sending anyone to prison for 30 days. What is your argument? Tell me. It's not enough to say you have a contractual right. What is so damaging about the revelation of the existence of a meeting?"

 

Judge - "Mr Ashley is an investor in two football clubs. That attracts comment, often critical, from football fans, but he should be well used to that."

 

Judge - "SD put loan arrangements in public domain when called for EGM?"

 

SD QC - "No."

 

Judge - "They must have done."

 

SD QC - "I am not repeating myself. Concern about media coverage is specifically about the commercial arrangement between SD and Rangers."

 

Judge - "Three-quarters of your arguments are looking to put King in prison for referring to existence of a meeting. It is your inability or reluctance to make it clear that damage has been sustained by King referring to existence of meeting. The natural remedy for any breach of contract is damages."

 

SD QC - "I have to differ in your view."

 

Judge - "You show me authority. There is a prospect of real harm if confidential contents of meetings are put in the public domain. I am staggered that SD want King in prison for revealing the existence of talks."

 

SD QC - "I can't confirm if Ashley and King have had further meetings."

 

Judge - "Are you worried your client is going to sue you?"

 

Rangers QC - "There have been no further meetings between Ashley and King."

 

Judge - "I still have not been told what part of the meeting with Ashley, Dave King is alleged to have revealed."

 

SD QC - "Mr King said to Sky News that he wanted to "restructure the relationship."

 

Judge - "And you want to put him in prison for that?"

 

SD QC - "Mr King liaised with the Rangers press team before interview. He said things to Sky which were expressly prohibited by injunction. The point we make is that, in the Sky interview, the journalist has gone to some length in considerable detail."

 

Dave King's statement to the court reads, "I cannot remember the exact words attributed to me.".

 

Judge - "SD need to prove that the words were Mr King's."

 

SD QC - "The point I'm making is that it is totally implausible that a journalist would have made up fifteen lines of very detailed reported speech from King."

 

Judge - "It's not fifteen lines - it's seven. This would all be resolved by you putting Mr King in the box, whites of the eyes, and ask if what the journalist said was true. You want me to send him to prison on a hearsay statement?"

 

Judge - "I needn't trouble Rangers. Application dismissed. Mr King should not feel completely "vindicated" on the matter of whether the injunction has been breached, and should say nothing to the press until the full judgement is handed down. There are other matters still to be dealt with. I will hear these by the end of January 2016."

[SteveC 150]

Have to say that this judge certainly did his research regards the noise behind the bare facts, to the point of apparently being aware of what DK was saying to the press at what I presume was lunch.

 

He seemed to already know what the real Ashely agenda was from the off and according to the tweets coming in, almost enjoyed goading and ridiculing the heavy and numerous SD legal team because he knew they had nothing substantial to offer.

 

However DK is prone to sometimes say a lttle more than is required or today was perhaps a little hasty given how this judge would seem to operate.

 

A good result today pending tomorrows full judgement,........ where I hope costs are addressed and in our favour. If they were it would be the best GIRFUY to Ashely because it would mean his objective of harming our cashflow would have failed.

 

That's certainly true if the quote re never having met a judge tear into someone so strongly before is accurate!

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant

 

King: "I've never witnessed a strong judge really virtually tearing someone apart the way he did today."

 

 

He has a short memory.