Ruling (Interventions, confidentiality, and permission to appeal)

Neutral citation:

[2010] CAT 16

Published:

25 Jun 2010

Download:

Summary:

Ruling of the President on certain requests for permission to intervene; the scope of the undertaking which the BT in-house lawyers should provide as a pre-condition of their membership of the proposed confidentiality ring and a request by The Football Association Premier League for permission to appeal.

The contentious requests for permission to intervene were made by RFL (Governing Body) Ltd, The Football Association Ltd, Rugby Football Union, The Football League Ltd, PGA European Tour, England and Wales Cricket Board and Mr David Henry. The President held that the interests of the six governing bodies of various sports are real and are sufficiently substantial to allow them to participate in the appeals. The President concluded that Mr Henry had not identified any interest in the outcome of these proceedings sufficient to justify his becoming a party to them. Accordingly, Mr Henry was refused permission to intervene in the appeals.

The President also considered the extent of the additional undertaking which the BT in-house lawyers should provide as a pre-condition of their membership of the proposed confidentiality ring. The President did not consider that it was necessary, nor fair, reasonable or proportionate to require the additional undertaking, which was offered by BT alone, to be extended to cover future employment.

Finally, the President refused The Football Association Premier League permission to appeal the ruling on the scope of the undertaking to be given by BT in-house lawyers, both on the ground that it had no realistic prospect of success and that there was no compelling reason why the appeal should be heard by the Court of Appeal.

This is an unofficial summary prepared by the Registry of the Competition Appeal Tribunal.