Cardiff City Forum



A forum for all things Cardiff City

" Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documents "

Wed Jan 15, 2025 5:55 pm

Many have said from day one that Ken Choo and the Secretary had not fully insured Sala that’s why Tan has been Suing Nantes as he could not fully claim etc







This is from L'Equipe (France):





If Insurance is not provided to them by the 21st Cardiff will incur a €2000 per day fine until they provide the files…


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226


The Nantes commercial court has ordered Cardiff City to provide FCN with documents relating to compensation from its insurance broker following the death of Emiliano Sala, in a dispute related to the one opposing the two clubs in civil proceedings.


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226

It was a technical procedural step in the interminable legal and financial war between Cardiff City FC (CCFC) and FCN before the Nantes Commercial Court. It concerned an incidental request filed by the Loire-Atlantique club last summer for the purpose of forced communication of certain documents by its Welsh counterpart, in this procedure initiated in May 2023 by CCFC in civil proceedings. And in this "dispute within the dispute", the 22-page reasoned judgment, which L'Équipe was able to consult, has been issued: the commercial court only partially ruled in favor of FC Nantes.

Let's rewind first: Cardiff sued Nantes, relying on virtual statistics, to calculate the amount of "damages suffered" following the accidental disappearance of Emiliano Sala on January 21, 2019, during the crash of a private plane in the English Channel. After complex calculations carried out by various experts in France and the United Kingdom, the Welsh club (demoted to the Championship at the end of the 2018-2019 season) estimated its "loss of opportunity" and its "loss of value" at 122.2 million euros. An astronomical sum that it continues to claim from the club chaired by Waldemar Kita.

The application filed by the FCN concerned the communication of multiple documents in Cardiff's hands, in three areas: the exchanges linked to a separate procedure, initiated by the CCFC before the Welsh courts against the Scottish agent Willie McKay (organiser of the fatal flight to Sala and central figure in this disastrous transfer), the expert and mathematical reports concerning the calculation of the "damages suffered" by Cardiff, and the documents linked to an additional compensation of 5.75 million pounds (€6.8 million) obtained by the CCFC in a dispute with its former insurance and reinsurance broker, the British company Miller Insurance LLP. The question was therefore whether the court considered that the documents requested by the FCN were "useful to the resolution of the dispute", on the merits .

The answer is positive, in favour of FCN, regarding the "documents exchanged between CCFC, its insurers and its broker" , the judges considered. As a reminder, the Welsh club obtained this £5.75 million in an amicable settlement with Miller, who was sued by Cardiff for "breach of duty to advise" in this other case, since the accidental death of the Argentinian striker was not covered by his insurance policy. This sum of almost €7 million was introduced in Cardiff City's accounting balance sheets last year. " Concerning compensation for damage suffered by CCFC in the context of the death of Mr Emiliano Sala, the Court will consider that these documents may be useful in resolving this dispute" , the judges ruled, by " granting FCN's request for disclosure of documents on this subject" .

On the other hand, the commercial court dismissed the FCN's request for documents concerning the proceedings brought against the sulphurous agent Willie McKay , before the High Court of Justice in Cardiff. "If possible links and common interests united McKay and the CCFC, who are nevertheless opposed in the actions before the High Court of Justice in Cardiff, it would be up to the FCN to prove them by its own means and not by the request for production of documents which are not a priori useful for the resolution of the present dispute" , explain the magistrates in their decision.

The court also rejected the FCN's claim regarding the expert reports provided by Cardiff to estimate the "damages suffered" following the loss of the player, who never played for the Bluebirds. To arrive at the amount claimed of €122.2 million, Cardiff City hired the services of the company Analytics FC, which specialises in football "data science" . It had crunched the odds of expected goals and expected points in order to establish the probability that Cardiff would have had of staying in the Premier League, at the time, with the Argentinian striker in its ranks. It was on this basis that Maurice Nussenbaum, a French legal and financial expert, also commissioned by Cardiff, was able to establish the club's quantified "loss of opportunity and value".

In its extremely detailed request, FC Nantes requested in particular "the calculation files and computer programs allowing to easily replicate all the results presented" , as well as "the details of the raw data relating to the 'millions of shots' used by Analytics FC to calibrate the xG (expected goals) calculation model " . If it were not a question of the death of a man, one could nervously smile in the face of such an abstruse level of complexity, in the merciless battle between the two clubs. Response from the court, which sticks to the law: "In any event, there is no reason to follow up on FCN's requests on this subject. FCN is not entitled to ask CCFC to supplement evidence that may be insufficient. The Court will therefore dismiss FCN's request" . While adding that "private expert reports will only be taken into account in the context of these proceedings if the hypotheses, methods and postulates used to develop them are explicit, transparent and comprehensible to the Court" .

"The majority of FC Nantes' claims have been dismissed by the court, which is only asking Cardiff to produce documents relating to its dispute with its insurance broker ," explained to us on Tuesday evening Ms. Celine Jones, from the British firm Capital Law, which is defending the interests of the Welsh club. "We are satisfied that yesterday (Monday) , the Nantes commercial court forced Cardiff to provide the elements requested by FC Nantes and this under penalty of €2,000 per day of delay starting from the eighth day ," reacted, for its part, the entourage of the Nantes club. FCN has only exercised a right, in order to fairly combat Cardiff's extravagant claims ." In this case, the next hearing will take place on April 14.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Wed Jan 15, 2025 6:03 pm

Bedtime read that.

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Wed Jan 15, 2025 6:31 pm

Many have said from day one that Ken Choo and the Secretary had not fully insured Sala that’s why Tan has been Suing Nantes as he could not fully claim etc
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Wed Jan 15, 2025 6:34 pm

If that is the case then surely that’s a sackable offence.

I wouldn’t be able to get away with something of that magnitude and don’t know anyone who would!

Too busy selling cars.

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Wed Jan 15, 2025 7:03 pm

it's the amount of compensation they've recieved from insurance company they have ordered not to prove if he was insuranced? . Also seems good that the court have dismissed fcn claims about the amounts Cardiff are saying ? So basically it will go to full court trial

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Wed Jan 15, 2025 7:05 pm

So Tan/Cardiff sue and get paid because the insurance company “failed to inform” accidental death isn’t covered by the insurance (nothing really accidental about it but we all know the ins and outs). The French civil court say Nantes can see that paperwork…. effectively confirming Sala was insured yet now there’s a possibility Choo didn’t insure Sala correctly and it can all backfire on the club/Tan.

If it’s not provided to them by the 21st Cardiff will incur a €2000 per day fine until they provide the files…

Why is it always around the SWD home match all this comes up and why does it look like our board fucked up monumentally….

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Wed Jan 15, 2025 8:01 pm

Reply:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Wed Jan 15, 2025 8:16 pm

Ok so from a legal perspective, and I do have 30 years civil litigation experience, the write up from Ned is encouraging for CCFCs success in this case.

And, whilst VT is not my favourite owner, I am being impartial and viewing this irrespective as to who owns our club.

So lets get back to the beginning

Legal Definition of Negligence
It has three strands all of which must apply for negligence to be proven - [Donoghue-v-Steven 1932]

1. A party must owe a duty of care to others who could reasonably be affected by their acts or ommissions
2. A party breaches their duty of care when their actions fall below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person
3. For Negligence to be actionable the breach of duty must cause harm of loss to the claimant.

Translated into Cardiff City-v-(1) Nantes & (2) W.Mckay & (3) Others

1. Duty of Care

Who Owes the Duty?

Nantes, through its agent Willie McKay, may owe a duty of care to Emiliano Sala, as McKay was involved in arranging Sala's transfer and travel arrangements.

The relationship between Nantes and McKay could establish a level of responsibility, particularly if McKay was acting as an agent on behalf of Nantes in the transfer process.

What is the scope of the Duty:

The duty of care would include ensuring that all aspects of the transfer, including travel arrangements, were safe and complied with relevant legal and professional standards.

This duty could extend to vetting the safety of the aircraft and the pilot arranged for Sala’s journey.

2. Breach of Duty

Alleged Breach by McKay:

It is alleged that Willie McKay arranged a private aircraft that was not properly certified for commercial flights and involved a pilot (David Ibbotson) who was not licensed to operate the flight legally.

If McKay's actions fell below the standard of care expected of an agent facilitating a professional footballer’s transfer, this could constitute a breach of duty.

Nantes’ Role:

If McKay was acting on behalf of Nantes, the club could be vicariously liable for his actions. Vicarious liability arises when an agent or employee, acting within the scope of their authority or employment, commits a wrongful act or negligence that causes harm.

3. Causation and Damage

Causation:

To establish negligence, it must be shown that McKay’s actions or omissions directly led to the tragic outcome. This could involve demonstrating that the unsafe arrangements for the flight directly caused the accident. In him receiving a criminal conviction more or less guarantees this.

Foreseeable Harm:

The harm must have been reasonably foreseeable. Given the circumstances, arranging an uncertified flight with an unlicensed pilot could reasonably foreseeably lead to an unsafe situation and potential harm to the passenger, Emiliano Sala.

Vicarious Liability of Nantes

Responsibility for McKay’s Actions:

If McKay was operating under the authority of Nantes and his actions were within the scope of his duties as their agent, Nantes could be held vicariously liable. This liability would depend on the contractual and legal relationship between McKay and Nantes.

The court would examine whether McKay’s actions were closely connected to his role in facilitating the transfer for Nantes, making the club responsible for ensuring the safety of arrangements he made.

Proving Vicarious Liability:

For vicarious liability to be established, it must be shown that:
(a) McKay was acting on behalf of Nantes.
(b) His negligent actions occurred during the performance of his duties.
(c) The negligence directly caused Sala’s death.

So the importance of Donoghue v. Stevenson to this case focuses on whether McKay owed a duty of care to Sala, whether he breached that duty, and whether that breach caused the fatal accident. If McKay was acting as an agent for Nantes and his actions led to the unsafe flight arrangements, Nantes could be held vicariously liable. The court would need to carefully analyze the contractual relationships, the scope of McKay’s authority, and the foreseeability of harm resulting from his actions.

What then are the potential losses CCFC suffered?

I am not privy to Cardiff Citys action but I suspect their losses include the following:

a) £15m being the value of the player
b) £122.2m being the estimated loss of revenue (or loss of opportunity) to Cardiff City as a result of being relegated.

Insurance

I think this is a little bit of a red herring. Whilst Cardiff City would have been stupid not to have insurance in place insuring a player is not a legal requirement.

Think car insurance there are "Insured Losses" and there are "Uninsured Losses"

An Insured Loss would be the car itself. If it is insured the insurance company pay and pursue the wrongful party
Uninsured Losses are things like Loss of Earning, Car Hire, Personal Injury - things you need to instruct a solicitor for.

So if Sala was insured Miller would pay CCFC Claim and they would pursue Nantes & CCFC pursue the loss of revenue aspect

If Sala was uninsured CCFC would pursue Nantes for both the £15m and the Loss of Revenue.

So what does the Court Order say

1. Cardiff City is to provide a copy of the relevant documents relating to their payment by Miller Insurance to Cardiff City
2. The Court rejects Nantes request for copies of documents pertaining to the legal claim towards Willie McKay
3. The Court rejects Nantes request for additional data in respect to Expert Evidence given by a football finance expert

What this says to me

In respect to Order (1) If Cardiff are pursuing £15m plus £122.2m. A total of £137.2m. If it transpires that Miller Insurance have paid £5m then the Court will consider that the claim is only worth a maximum of £132.2m

In respect to Order (2) I see this as very positive. I take it to mean that they accept W.McKay has been found guilty in a criminal court and that automatically makes him negligent in a civil action and the Court appear to be accepting that.

The fact that this case has not been struck out suggests to me that the Court appearr to accept that Nantes are vicariously liable for the actions of W.McKay

In respect to Order (3) again I see this as very positive. A football finance expert has given his expert opinion and made the assessment that Cardiff City lost £122.2m as a result of the death of Emiliano. Nantes wanted more data but the couort appear happy with the report that has been provided. I think if the court were unsure of the experts report they would have accepted Nantes request.

My View

I believe the case of negligence has already been proven and I think the parties, and the court, appear to be accepting of that. The fact that the court did not wish to see further documents, pertaining to the trial of W.McKay, for me, speaks volumes.

If liability has already been established then all thats left is quantum - (i.e. how much do i get?)

It appears that a schedule of around £137.2m has been claimed (Plus costs). As you cannot claim twice for the same thing if CCFC have received £5m from Miller then the maximum (using these figures) they can receive from Nantes will be £132.2m

The Court are happy with the Expert Evidence provided by the Football Finance Expert and at trial I would suspect a decision as follows:

1. On Nantes being vicariously liable for the actions of W.McKay the Defendants be ordered to pay Cardiff City Football club the following:
2. In respect to Quantum a sum between £1 and £132.2m (My guess would be around £80m)
3. The Defendant do also pay the Claimant costs of the case.


This is purely my view from my experience and reading Neds update

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Wed Jan 15, 2025 8:21 pm

Forever Blue wrote:Reply:


Annis, ever since Daya put out this information, I have been puzzled. Why would the Stadium manager have any influence, or authority, to ensure that, at that time (or any time for that matter) was insured appropriately,,, bearing in mind the fact that ES was the highest transfer fee ever paid by Cardiff City in their history?

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Wed Jan 15, 2025 9:12 pm

RICK+CCFC wrote:
Forever Blue wrote:Reply:


Annis, ever since Daya put out this information, I have been puzzled. Why would the Stadium manager have any influence, or authority, to ensure that, at that time (or any time for that matter) was insured appropriately,,, bearing in mind the fact that ES was the highest transfer fee ever paid by Cardiff City in their history?


Makes no sense that Nash would be involved in transfers in any way shape or form or for any reason whatsoever.

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Wed Jan 15, 2025 9:14 pm

Paul Keevil wrote:Ok so from a legal perspective, and I do have 30 years civil litigation experience, the write up from Ned is encouraging for CCFCs success in this case.

And, whilst VT is not my favourite owner, I am being impartial and viewing this irrespective as to who owns our club.

So lets get back to the beginning

Legal Definition of Negligence
It has three strands all of which must apply for negligence to be proven - [Donoghue-v-Steven 1932]

1. A party must owe a duty of care to others who could reasonably be affected by their acts or ommissions
2. A party breaches their duty of care when their actions fall below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person
3. For Negligence to be actionable the breach of duty must cause harm of loss to the claimant.

Translated into Cardiff City-v-(1) Nantes & (2) W.Mckay & (3) Others

1. Duty of Care

Who Owes the Duty?

Nantes, through its agent Willie McKay, may owe a duty of care to Emiliano Sala, as McKay was involved in arranging Sala's transfer and travel arrangements.

The relationship between Nantes and McKay could establish a level of responsibility, particularly if McKay was acting as an agent on behalf of Nantes in the transfer process.

What is the scope of the Duty:

The duty of care would include ensuring that all aspects of the transfer, including travel arrangements, were safe and complied with relevant legal and professional standards.

This duty could extend to vetting the safety of the aircraft and the pilot arranged for Sala’s journey.

2. Breach of Duty

Alleged Breach by McKay:

It is alleged that Willie McKay arranged a private aircraft that was not properly certified for commercial flights and involved a pilot (David Ibbotson) who was not licensed to operate the flight legally.

If McKay's actions fell below the standard of care expected of an agent facilitating a professional footballer’s transfer, this could constitute a breach of duty.

Nantes’ Role:

If McKay was acting on behalf of Nantes, the club could be vicariously liable for his actions. Vicarious liability arises when an agent or employee, acting within the scope of their authority or employment, commits a wrongful act or negligence that causes harm.

3. Causation and Damage

Causation:

To establish negligence, it must be shown that McKay’s actions or omissions directly led to the tragic outcome. This could involve demonstrating that the unsafe arrangements for the flight directly caused the accident. In him receiving a criminal conviction more or less guarantees this.

Foreseeable Harm:

The harm must have been reasonably foreseeable. Given the circumstances, arranging an uncertified flight with an unlicensed pilot could reasonably foreseeably lead to an unsafe situation and potential harm to the passenger, Emiliano Sala.

Vicarious Liability of Nantes

Responsibility for McKay’s Actions:

If McKay was operating under the authority of Nantes and his actions were within the scope of his duties as their agent, Nantes could be held vicariously liable. This liability would depend on the contractual and legal relationship between McKay and Nantes.

The court would examine whether McKay’s actions were closely connected to his role in facilitating the transfer for Nantes, making the club responsible for ensuring the safety of arrangements he made.

Proving Vicarious Liability:

For vicarious liability to be established, it must be shown that:
(a) McKay was acting on behalf of Nantes.
(b) His negligent actions occurred during the performance of his duties.
(c) The negligence directly caused Sala’s death.

So the importance of Donoghue v. Stevenson to this case focuses on whether McKay owed a duty of care to Sala, whether he breached that duty, and whether that breach caused the fatal accident. If McKay was acting as an agent for Nantes and his actions led to the unsafe flight arrangements, Nantes could be held vicariously liable. The court would need to carefully analyze the contractual relationships, the scope of McKay’s authority, and the foreseeability of harm resulting from his actions.

What then are the potential losses CCFC suffered?

I am not privy to Cardiff Citys action but I suspect their losses include the following:

a) £15m being the value of the player
b) £122.2m being the estimated loss of revenue (or loss of opportunity) to Cardiff City as a result of being relegated.

Insurance

I think this is a little bit of a red herring. Whilst Cardiff City would have been stupid not to have insurance in place insuring a player is not a legal requirement.

Think car insurance there are "Insured Losses" and there are "Uninsured Losses"

An Insured Loss would be the car itself. If it is insured the insurance company pay and pursue the wrongful party
Uninsured Losses are things like Loss of Earning, Car Hire, Personal Injury - things you need to instruct a solicitor for.

So if Sala was insured Miller would pay CCFC Claim and they would pursue Nantes & CCFC pursue the loss of revenue aspect

If Sala was uninsured CCFC would pursue Nantes for both the £15m and the Loss of Revenue.

So what does the Court Order say

1. Cardiff City is to provide a copy of the relevant documents relating to their payment by Miller Insurance to Cardiff City
2. The Court rejects Nantes request for copies of documents pertaining to the legal claim towards Willie McKay
3. The Court rejects Nantes request for additional data in respect to Expert Evidence given by a football finance expert

What this says to me

In respect to Order (1) If Cardiff are pursuing £15m plus £122.2m. A total of £137.2m. If it transpires that Miller Insurance have paid £5m then the Court will consider that the claim is only worth a maximum of £132.2m

In respect to Order (2) I see this as very positive. I take it to mean that they accept W.McKay has been found guilty in a criminal court and that automatically makes him negligent in a civil action and the Court appear to be accepting that.

The fact that this case has not been struck out suggests to me that the Court appearr to accept that Nantes are vicariously liable for the actions of W.McKay

In respect to Order (3) again I see this as very positive. A football finance expert has given his expert opinion and made the assessment that Cardiff City lost £122.2m as a result of the death of Emiliano. Nantes wanted more data but the couort appear happy with the report that has been provided. I think if the court were unsure of the experts report they would have accepted Nantes request.

My View

I believe the case of negligence has already been proven and I think the parties, and the court, appear to be accepting of that. The fact that the court did not wish to see further documents, pertaining to the trial of W.McKay, for me, speaks volumes.

If liability has already been established then all thats left is quantum - (i.e. how much do i get?)

It appears that a schedule of around £137.2m has been claimed (Plus costs). As you cannot claim twice for the same thing if CCFC have received £5m from Miller then the maximum (using these figures) they can receive from Nantes will be £132.2m

The Court are happy with the Expert Evidence provided by the Football Finance Expert and at trial I would suspect a decision as follows:

1. On Nantes being vicariously liable for the actions of W.McKay the Defendants be ordered to pay Cardiff City Football club the following:
2. In respect to Quantum a sum between £1 and £132.2m (My guess would be around £80m)
3. The Defendant do also pay the Claimant costs of the case.


This is purely my view from my experience and reading Neds update

Very interesting and I honestly think Cardiff will get a judgement but will we ever get the money? Nantes have they got any?

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Wed Jan 15, 2025 9:25 pm

Sorry Wez. That was something I meant to clarify. If we are successful in getting say £80m it will be Nantes insurers and not Nantes who pay the bill.

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Wed Jan 15, 2025 9:47 pm

Paul Keevil wrote:Ok so from a legal perspective, and I do have 30 years civil litigation experience, the write up from Ned is encouraging for CCFCs success in this case.

And, whilst VT is not my favourite owner, I am being impartial and viewing this irrespective as to who owns our club.

So lets get back to the beginning

Legal Definition of Negligence
It has three strands all of which must apply for negligence to be proven - [Donoghue-v-Steven 1932]

1. A party must owe a duty of care to others who could reasonably be affected by their acts or ommissions
2. A party breaches their duty of care when their actions fall below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person
3. For Negligence to be actionable the breach of duty must cause harm of loss to the claimant.

Translated into Cardiff City-v-(1) Nantes & (2) W.Mckay & (3) Others

1. Duty of Care

Who Owes the Duty?

Nantes, through its agent Willie McKay, may owe a duty of care to Emiliano Sala, as McKay was involved in arranging Sala's transfer and travel arrangements.

The relationship between Nantes and McKay could establish a level of responsibility, particularly if McKay was acting as an agent on behalf of Nantes in the transfer process.

What is the scope of the Duty:

The duty of care would include ensuring that all aspects of the transfer, including travel arrangements, were safe and complied with relevant legal and professional standards.

This duty could extend to vetting the safety of the aircraft and the pilot arranged for Sala’s journey.

2. Breach of Duty

Alleged Breach by McKay:

It is alleged that Willie McKay arranged a private aircraft that was not properly certified for commercial flights and involved a pilot (David Ibbotson) who was not licensed to operate the flight legally.

If McKay's actions fell below the standard of care expected of an agent facilitating a professional footballer’s transfer, this could constitute a breach of duty.

Nantes’ Role:

If McKay was acting on behalf of Nantes, the club could be vicariously liable for his actions. Vicarious liability arises when an agent or employee, acting within the scope of their authority or employment, commits a wrongful act or negligence that causes harm.

3. Causation and Damage

Causation:

To establish negligence, it must be shown that McKay’s actions or omissions directly led to the tragic outcome. This could involve demonstrating that the unsafe arrangements for the flight directly caused the accident. In him receiving a criminal conviction more or less guarantees this.

Foreseeable Harm:

The harm must have been reasonably foreseeable. Given the circumstances, arranging an uncertified flight with an unlicensed pilot could reasonably foreseeably lead to an unsafe situation and potential harm to the passenger, Emiliano Sala.

Vicarious Liability of Nantes

Responsibility for McKay’s Actions:

If McKay was operating under the authority of Nantes and his actions were within the scope of his duties as their agent, Nantes could be held vicariously liable. This liability would depend on the contractual and legal relationship between McKay and Nantes.

The court would examine whether McKay’s actions were closely connected to his role in facilitating the transfer for Nantes, making the club responsible for ensuring the safety of arrangements he made.

Proving Vicarious Liability:

For vicarious liability to be established, it must be shown that:
(a) McKay was acting on behalf of Nantes.
(b) His negligent actions occurred during the performance of his duties.
(c) The negligence directly caused Sala’s death.

So the importance of Donoghue v. Stevenson to this case focuses on whether McKay owed a duty of care to Sala, whether he breached that duty, and whether that breach caused the fatal accident. If McKay was acting as an agent for Nantes and his actions led to the unsafe flight arrangements, Nantes could be held vicariously liable. The court would need to carefully analyze the contractual relationships, the scope of McKay’s authority, and the foreseeability of harm resulting from his actions.

What then are the potential losses CCFC suffered?

I am not privy to Cardiff Citys action but I suspect their losses include the following:

a) £15m being the value of the player
b) £122.2m being the estimated loss of revenue (or loss of opportunity) to Cardiff City as a result of being relegated.

Insurance

I think this is a little bit of a red herring. Whilst Cardiff City would have been stupid not to have insurance in place insuring a player is not a legal requirement.

Think car insurance there are "Insured Losses" and there are "Uninsured Losses"

An Insured Loss would be the car itself. If it is insured the insurance company pay and pursue the wrongful party
Uninsured Losses are things like Loss of Earning, Car Hire, Personal Injury - things you need to instruct a solicitor for.

So if Sala was insured Miller would pay CCFC Claim and they would pursue Nantes & CCFC pursue the loss of revenue aspect

If Sala was uninsured CCFC would pursue Nantes for both the £15m and the Loss of Revenue.

So what does the Court Order say

1. Cardiff City is to provide a copy of the relevant documents relating to their payment by Miller Insurance to Cardiff City
2. The Court rejects Nantes request for copies of documents pertaining to the legal claim towards Willie McKay
3. The Court rejects Nantes request for additional data in respect to Expert Evidence given by a football finance expert

What this says to me

In respect to Order (1) If Cardiff are pursuing £15m plus £122.2m. A total of £137.2m. If it transpires that Miller Insurance have paid £5m then the Court will consider that the claim is only worth a maximum of £132.2m

In respect to Order (2) I see this as very positive. I take it to mean that they accept W.McKay has been found guilty in a criminal court and that automatically makes him negligent in a civil action and the Court appear to be accepting that.

The fact that this case has not been struck out suggests to me that the Court appearr to accept that Nantes are vicariously liable for the actions of W.McKay

In respect to Order (3) again I see this as very positive. A football finance expert has given his expert opinion and made the assessment that Cardiff City lost £122.2m as a result of the death of Emiliano. Nantes wanted more data but the couort appear happy with the report that has been provided. I think if the court were unsure of the experts report they would have accepted Nantes request.

My View

I believe the case of negligence has already been proven and I think the parties, and the court, appear to be accepting of that. The fact that the court did not wish to see further documents, pertaining to the trial of W.McKay, for me, speaks volumes.

If liability has already been established then all thats left is quantum - (i.e. how much do i get?)

It appears that a schedule of around £137.2m has been claimed (Plus costs). As you cannot claim twice for the same thing if CCFC have received £5m from Miller then the maximum (using these figures) they can receive from Nantes will be £132.2m

The Court are happy with the Expert Evidence provided by the Football Finance Expert and at trial I would suspect a decision as follows:

1. On Nantes being vicariously liable for the actions of W.McKay the Defendants be ordered to pay Cardiff City Football club the following:
2. In respect to Quantum a sum between £1 and £132.2m (My guess would be around £80m)
3. The Defendant do also pay the Claimant costs of the case.


This is purely my view from my experience and reading Neds update


Thanks Paul very well explained

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Wed Jan 15, 2025 9:48 pm

Paul Keevil wrote:Ok so from a legal perspective, and I do have 30 years civil litigation experience, the write up from Ned is encouraging for CCFCs success in this case.

And, whilst VT is not my favourite owner, I am being impartial and viewing this irrespective as to who owns our club.

So lets get back to the beginning

Legal Definition of Negligence
It has three strands all of which must apply for negligence to be proven - [Donoghue-v-Steven 1932]

1. A party must owe a duty of care to others who could reasonably be affected by their acts or ommissions
2. A party breaches their duty of care when their actions fall below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person
3. For Negligence to be actionable the breach of duty must cause harm of loss to the claimant.

Translated into Cardiff City-v-(1) Nantes & (2) W.Mckay & (3) Others

1. Duty of Care

Who Owes the Duty?

Nantes, through its agent Willie McKay, may owe a duty of care to Emiliano Sala, as McKay was involved in arranging Sala's transfer and travel arrangements.

The relationship between Nantes and McKay could establish a level of responsibility, particularly if McKay was acting as an agent on behalf of Nantes in the transfer process.

What is the scope of the Duty:

The duty of care would include ensuring that all aspects of the transfer, including travel arrangements, were safe and complied with relevant legal and professional standards.

This duty could extend to vetting the safety of the aircraft and the pilot arranged for Sala’s journey.

2. Breach of Duty

Alleged Breach by McKay:

It is alleged that Willie McKay arranged a private aircraft that was not properly certified for commercial flights and involved a pilot (David Ibbotson) who was not licensed to operate the flight legally.

If McKay's actions fell below the standard of care expected of an agent facilitating a professional footballer’s transfer, this could constitute a breach of duty.

Nantes’ Role:

If McKay was acting on behalf of Nantes, the club could be vicariously liable for his actions. Vicarious liability arises when an agent or employee, acting within the scope of their authority or employment, commits a wrongful act or negligence that causes harm.

3. Causation and Damage

Causation:

To establish negligence, it must be shown that McKay’s actions or omissions directly led to the tragic outcome. This could involve demonstrating that the unsafe arrangements for the flight directly caused the accident. In him receiving a criminal conviction more or less guarantees this.

Foreseeable Harm:

The harm must have been reasonably foreseeable. Given the circumstances, arranging an uncertified flight with an unlicensed pilot could reasonably foreseeably lead to an unsafe situation and potential harm to the passenger, Emiliano Sala.

Vicarious Liability of Nantes

Responsibility for McKay’s Actions:

If McKay was operating under the authority of Nantes and his actions were within the scope of his duties as their agent, Nantes could be held vicariously liable. This liability would depend on the contractual and legal relationship between McKay and Nantes.

The court would examine whether McKay’s actions were closely connected to his role in facilitating the transfer for Nantes, making the club responsible for ensuring the safety of arrangements he made.

Proving Vicarious Liability:

For vicarious liability to be established, it must be shown that:
(a) McKay was acting on behalf of Nantes.
(b) His negligent actions occurred during the performance of his duties.
(c) The negligence directly caused Sala’s death.

So the importance of Donoghue v. Stevenson to this case focuses on whether McKay owed a duty of care to Sala, whether he breached that duty, and whether that breach caused the fatal accident. If McKay was acting as an agent for Nantes and his actions led to the unsafe flight arrangements, Nantes could be held vicariously liable. The court would need to carefully analyze the contractual relationships, the scope of McKay’s authority, and the foreseeability of harm resulting from his actions.

What then are the potential losses CCFC suffered?

I am not privy to Cardiff Citys action but I suspect their losses include the following:

a) £15m being the value of the player
b) £122.2m being the estimated loss of revenue (or loss of opportunity) to Cardiff City as a result of being relegated.

Insurance

I think this is a little bit of a red herring. Whilst Cardiff City would have been stupid not to have insurance in place insuring a player is not a legal requirement.

Think car insurance there are "Insured Losses" and there are "Uninsured Losses"

An Insured Loss would be the car itself. If it is insured the insurance company pay and pursue the wrongful party
Uninsured Losses are things like Loss of Earning, Car Hire, Personal Injury - things you need to instruct a solicitor for.

So if Sala was insured Miller would pay CCFC Claim and they would pursue Nantes & CCFC pursue the loss of revenue aspect

If Sala was uninsured CCFC would pursue Nantes for both the £15m and the Loss of Revenue.

So what does the Court Order say

1. Cardiff City is to provide a copy of the relevant documents relating to their payment by Miller Insurance to Cardiff City
2. The Court rejects Nantes request for copies of documents pertaining to the legal claim towards Willie McKay
3. The Court rejects Nantes request for additional data in respect to Expert Evidence given by a football finance expert

What this says to me

In respect to Order (1) If Cardiff are pursuing £15m plus £122.2m. A total of £137.2m. If it transpires that Miller Insurance have paid £5m then the Court will consider that the claim is only worth a maximum of £132.2m

In respect to Order (2) I see this as very positive. I take it to mean that they accept W.McKay has been found guilty in a criminal court and that automatically makes him negligent in a civil action and the Court appear to be accepting that.

The fact that this case has not been struck out suggests to me that the Court appearr to accept that Nantes are vicariously liable for the actions of W.McKay

In respect to Order (3) again I see this as very positive. A football finance expert has given his expert opinion and made the assessment that Cardiff City lost £122.2m as a result of the death of Emiliano. Nantes wanted more data but the couort appear happy with the report that has been provided. I think if the court were unsure of the experts report they would have accepted Nantes request.

My View

I believe the case of negligence has already been proven and I think the parties, and the court, appear to be accepting of that. The fact that the court did not wish to see further documents, pertaining to the trial of W.McKay, for me, speaks volumes.

If liability has already been established then all thats left is quantum - (i.e. how much do i get?)

It appears that a schedule of around £137.2m has been claimed (Plus costs). As you cannot claim twice for the same thing if CCFC have received £5m from Miller then the maximum (using these figures) they can receive from Nantes will be £132.2m

The Court are happy with the Expert Evidence provided by the Football Finance Expert and at trial I would suspect a decision as follows:

1. On Nantes being vicariously liable for the actions of W.McKay the Defendants be ordered to pay Cardiff City Football club the following:
2. In respect to Quantum a sum between £1 and £132.2m (My guess would be around £80m)
3. The Defendant do also pay the Claimant costs of the case.


This is purely my view from my experience and reading Neds update


Thanks for posting that Paul, very informative.

Interesting times ahead.

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Wed Jan 15, 2025 10:14 pm

RICK+CCFC wrote:
Forever Blue wrote:Reply:


Annis, ever since Daya put out this information, I have been puzzled. Why would the Stadium manager have any influence, or authority, to ensure that, at that time (or any time for that matter) was insured appropriately,,, bearing in mind the fact that ES was the highest transfer fee ever paid by Cardiff City in their history?


Put out information? Or a claim?

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Wed Jan 15, 2025 10:27 pm

Paul Keevil wrote:Ok so from a legal perspective, and I do have 30 years civil litigation experience, the write up from Ned is encouraging for CCFCs success in this case.

And, whilst VT is not my favourite owner, I am being impartial and viewing this irrespective as to who owns our club.

So lets get back to the beginning

Legal Definition of Negligence
It has three strands all of which must apply for negligence to be proven - [Donoghue-v-Steven 1932]

1. A party must owe a duty of care to others who could reasonably be affected by their acts or ommissions
2. A party breaches their duty of care when their actions fall below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person
3. For Negligence to be actionable the breach of duty must cause harm of loss to the claimant.

Translated into Cardiff City-v-(1) Nantes & (2) W.Mckay & (3) Others

1. Duty of Care

Who Owes the Duty?

Nantes, through its agent Willie McKay, may owe a duty of care to Emiliano Sala, as McKay was involved in arranging Sala's transfer and travel arrangements.

The relationship between Nantes and McKay could establish a level of responsibility, particularly if McKay was acting as an agent on behalf of Nantes in the transfer process.

What is the scope of the Duty:

The duty of care would include ensuring that all aspects of the transfer, including travel arrangements, were safe and complied with relevant legal and professional standards.

This duty could extend to vetting the safety of the aircraft and the pilot arranged for Sala’s journey.

2. Breach of Duty

Alleged Breach by McKay:

It is alleged that Willie McKay arranged a private aircraft that was not properly certified for commercial flights and involved a pilot (David Ibbotson) who was not licensed to operate the flight legally.

If McKay's actions fell below the standard of care expected of an agent facilitating a professional footballer’s transfer, this could constitute a breach of duty.

Nantes’ Role:

If McKay was acting on behalf of Nantes, the club could be vicariously liable for his actions. Vicarious liability arises when an agent or employee, acting within the scope of their authority or employment, commits a wrongful act or negligence that causes harm.

3. Causation and Damage

Causation:

To establish negligence, it must be shown that McKay’s actions or omissions directly led to the tragic outcome. This could involve demonstrating that the unsafe arrangements for the flight directly caused the accident. In him receiving a criminal conviction more or less guarantees this.

Foreseeable Harm:

The harm must have been reasonably foreseeable. Given the circumstances, arranging an uncertified flight with an unlicensed pilot could reasonably foreseeably lead to an unsafe situation and potential harm to the passenger, Emiliano Sala.

Vicarious Liability of Nantes

Responsibility for McKay’s Actions:

If McKay was operating under the authority of Nantes and his actions were within the scope of his duties as their agent, Nantes could be held vicariously liable. This liability would depend on the contractual and legal relationship between McKay and Nantes.

The court would examine whether McKay’s actions were closely connected to his role in facilitating the transfer for Nantes, making the club responsible for ensuring the safety of arrangements he made.

Proving Vicarious Liability:

For vicarious liability to be established, it must be shown that:
(a) McKay was acting on behalf of Nantes.
(b) His negligent actions occurred during the performance of his duties.
(c) The negligence directly caused Sala’s death.

So the importance of Donoghue v. Stevenson to this case focuses on whether McKay owed a duty of care to Sala, whether he breached that duty, and whether that breach caused the fatal accident. If McKay was acting as an agent for Nantes and his actions led to the unsafe flight arrangements, Nantes could be held vicariously liable. The court would need to carefully analyze the contractual relationships, the scope of McKay’s authority, and the foreseeability of harm resulting from his actions.

What then are the potential losses CCFC suffered?

I am not privy to Cardiff Citys action but I suspect their losses include the following:

a) £15m being the value of the player
b) £122.2m being the estimated loss of revenue (or loss of opportunity) to Cardiff City as a result of being relegated.

Insurance

I think this is a little bit of a red herring. Whilst Cardiff City would have been stupid not to have insurance in place insuring a player is not a legal requirement.

Think car insurance there are "Insured Losses" and there are "Uninsured Losses"

An Insured Loss would be the car itself. If it is insured the insurance company pay and pursue the wrongful party
Uninsured Losses are things like Loss of Earning, Car Hire, Personal Injury - things you need to instruct a solicitor for.

So if Sala was insured Miller would pay CCFC Claim and they would pursue Nantes & CCFC pursue the loss of revenue aspect

If Sala was uninsured CCFC would pursue Nantes for both the £15m and the Loss of Revenue.

So what does the Court Order say

1. Cardiff City is to provide a copy of the relevant documents relating to their payment by Miller Insurance to Cardiff City
2. The Court rejects Nantes request for copies of documents pertaining to the legal claim towards Willie McKay
3. The Court rejects Nantes request for additional data in respect to Expert Evidence given by a football finance expert

What this says to me

In respect to Order (1) If Cardiff are pursuing £15m plus £122.2m. A total of £137.2m. If it transpires that Miller Insurance have paid £5m then the Court will consider that the claim is only worth a maximum of £132.2m

In respect to Order (2) I see this as very positive. I take it to mean that they accept W.McKay has been found guilty in a criminal court and that automatically makes him negligent in a civil action and the Court appear to be accepting that.

The fact that this case has not been struck out suggests to me that the Court appearr to accept that Nantes are vicariously liable for the actions of W.McKay

In respect to Order (3) again I see this as very positive. A football finance expert has given his expert opinion and made the assessment that Cardiff City lost £122.2m as a result of the death of Emiliano. Nantes wanted more data but the couort appear happy with the report that has been provided. I think if the court were unsure of the experts report they would have accepted Nantes request.

My View

I believe the case of negligence has already been proven and I think the parties, and the court, appear to be accepting of that. The fact that the court did not wish to see further documents, pertaining to the trial of W.McKay, for me, speaks volumes.

If liability has already been established then all thats left is quantum - (i.e. how much do i get?)

It appears that a schedule of around £137.2m has been claimed (Plus costs). As you cannot claim twice for the same thing if CCFC have received £5m from Miller then the maximum (using these figures) they can receive from Nantes will be £132.2m

The Court are happy with the Expert Evidence provided by the Football Finance Expert and at trial I would suspect a decision as follows:

1. On Nantes being vicariously liable for the actions of W.McKay the Defendants be ordered to pay Cardiff City Football club the following:
2. In respect to Quantum a sum between £1 and £132.2m (My guess would be around £80m)
3. The Defendant do also pay the Claimant costs of the case.


This is purely my view from my experience and reading Neds update


Excellent post, Paul. Always explain the complex threads of the case so clearly. :clap: :clap:

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:02 pm

Any idea on timing of the judgement, then I guess appeals

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:08 pm

Cardiff City have reached a settlement with insurance broker Miller Insurance Services LLP over the death of Emiliano Sala.Sept 2023,Wales online

Last November, Cardiff signalled their intention to sue the insurance company for £10m, claiming they failed to properly communicate the process for immediately insuring new players. They claimed Miller Insurance failed to act with reasonable skill and care and that it was the broker's responsibility to inform the club they would not be insured for a new player's death until its policy was amended to cover the new signing.

The club said they would have requested £20m of coverage for Sala before he boarded the plane if they had been informed of the risks tethered to such tragic events, should they take place.

However, the High Court case has been settled, Cardiff have announced. The financial terms of the agreement have not been disclosed.

They wrote in a statement: “Cardiff City Football Club Limited and Miller Insurance Services LLP are pleased to confirm that they have agreed terms to resolve CCFC’s High Court claim against Miller in connection with the tragic death of Emiliano Sala in January 2019.

"The terms of the settlement will remain confidential between the parties.”

Cardiff paid the full £15m transfer fee for Sala to Nantes earlier this summer, paying the second and third instalments in one sum having already paid an initial £7m.

The full payment helped to lift the transfer embargo under which the club had been placed, meaning they will be able to spend money on players again come January.

Cardiff said in a statement in July that, despite paying the full fee to Nantes, they would "continue to work towards those responsible being held accountable" and "look forward to the trial before the French court next year."

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Thu Jan 16, 2025 12:21 am

Einstein wrote:Any idea on timing of the judgement, then I guess appeals


Insurance companies are not stupid. If they think they are going to lose on liability then I suspect that they will make an offer of settlement to settle the case before trial

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Fri Jan 17, 2025 9:29 am

Paul Keevil wrote:Ok so from a legal perspective, and I do have 30 years civil litigation experience, the write up from Ned is encouraging for CCFCs success in this case.

And, whilst VT is not my favourite owner, I am being impartial and viewing this irrespective as to who owns our club.

So lets get back to the beginning

Legal Definition of Negligence
It has three strands all of which must apply for negligence to be proven - [Donoghue-v-Steven 1932]

1. A party must owe a duty of care to others who could reasonably be affected by their acts or ommissions
2. A party breaches their duty of care when their actions fall below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person
3. For Negligence to be actionable the breach of duty must cause harm of loss to the claimant.

Translated into Cardiff City-v-(1) Nantes & (2) W.Mckay & (3) Others

1. Duty of Care

Who Owes the Duty?

Nantes, through its agent Willie McKay, may owe a duty of care to Emiliano Sala, as McKay was involved in arranging Sala's transfer and travel arrangements.

The relationship between Nantes and McKay could establish a level of responsibility, particularly if McKay was acting as an agent on behalf of Nantes in the transfer process.

What is the scope of the Duty:

The duty of care would include ensuring that all aspects of the transfer, including travel arrangements, were safe and complied with relevant legal and professional standards.

This duty could extend to vetting the safety of the aircraft and the pilot arranged for Sala’s journey.

2. Breach of Duty

Alleged Breach by McKay:

It is alleged that Willie McKay arranged a private aircraft that was not properly certified for commercial flights and involved a pilot (David Ibbotson) who was not licensed to operate the flight legally.

If McKay's actions fell below the standard of care expected of an agent facilitating a professional footballer’s transfer, this could constitute a breach of duty.

Nantes’ Role:

If McKay was acting on behalf of Nantes, the club could be vicariously liable for his actions. Vicarious liability arises when an agent or employee, acting within the scope of their authority or employment, commits a wrongful act or negligence that causes harm.

3. Causation and Damage

Causation:

To establish negligence, it must be shown that McKay’s actions or omissions directly led to the tragic outcome. This could involve demonstrating that the unsafe arrangements for the flight directly caused the accident. In him receiving a criminal conviction more or less guarantees this.

Foreseeable Harm:

The harm must have been reasonably foreseeable. Given the circumstances, arranging an uncertified flight with an unlicensed pilot could reasonably foreseeably lead to an unsafe situation and potential harm to the passenger, Emiliano Sala.

Vicarious Liability of Nantes

Responsibility for McKay’s Actions:

If McKay was operating under the authority of Nantes and his actions were within the scope of his duties as their agent, Nantes could be held vicariously liable. This liability would depend on the contractual and legal relationship between McKay and Nantes.

The court would examine whether McKay’s actions were closely connected to his role in facilitating the transfer for Nantes, making the club responsible for ensuring the safety of arrangements he made.

Proving Vicarious Liability:

For vicarious liability to be established, it must be shown that:
(a) McKay was acting on behalf of Nantes.
(b) His negligent actions occurred during the performance of his duties.
(c) The negligence directly caused Sala’s death.

So the importance of Donoghue v. Stevenson to this case focuses on whether McKay owed a duty of care to Sala, whether he breached that duty, and whether that breach caused the fatal accident. If McKay was acting as an agent for Nantes and his actions led to the unsafe flight arrangements, Nantes could be held vicariously liable. The court would need to carefully analyze the contractual relationships, the scope of McKay’s authority, and the foreseeability of harm resulting from his actions.

What then are the potential losses CCFC suffered?

I am not privy to Cardiff Citys action but I suspect their losses include the following:

a) £15m being the value of the player
b) £122.2m being the estimated loss of revenue (or loss of opportunity) to Cardiff City as a result of being relegated.

Insurance

I think this is a little bit of a red herring. Whilst Cardiff City would have been stupid not to have insurance in place insuring a player is not a legal requirement.

Think car insurance there are "Insured Losses" and there are "Uninsured Losses"

An Insured Loss would be the car itself. If it is insured the insurance company pay and pursue the wrongful party
Uninsured Losses are things like Loss of Earning, Car Hire, Personal Injury - things you need to instruct a solicitor for.

So if Sala was insured Miller would pay CCFC Claim and they would pursue Nantes & CCFC pursue the loss of revenue aspect

If Sala was uninsured CCFC would pursue Nantes for both the £15m and the Loss of Revenue.

So what does the Court Order say

1. Cardiff City is to provide a copy of the relevant documents relating to their payment by Miller Insurance to Cardiff City
2. The Court rejects Nantes request for copies of documents pertaining to the legal claim towards Willie McKay
3. The Court rejects Nantes request for additional data in respect to Expert Evidence given by a football finance expert

What this says to me

In respect to Order (1) If Cardiff are pursuing £15m plus £122.2m. A total of £137.2m. If it transpires that Miller Insurance have paid £5m then the Court will consider that the claim is only worth a maximum of £132.2m

In respect to Order (2) I see this as very positive. I take it to mean that they accept W.McKay has been found guilty in a criminal court and that automatically makes him negligent in a civil action and the Court appear to be accepting that.

The fact that this case has not been struck out suggests to me that the Court appearr to accept that Nantes are vicariously liable for the actions of W.McKay

In respect to Order (3) again I see this as very positive. A football finance expert has given his expert opinion and made the assessment that Cardiff City lost £122.2m as a result of the death of Emiliano. Nantes wanted more data but the couort appear happy with the report that has been provided. I think if the court were unsure of the experts report they would have accepted Nantes request.

My View

I believe the case of negligence has already been proven and I think the parties, and the court, appear to be accepting of that. The fact that the court did not wish to see further documents, pertaining to the trial of W.McKay, for me, speaks volumes.

If liability has already been established then all thats left is quantum - (i.e. how much do i get?)

It appears that a schedule of around £137.2m has been claimed (Plus costs). As you cannot claim twice for the same thing if CCFC have received £5m from Miller then the maximum (using these figures) they can receive from Nantes will be £132.2m

The Court are happy with the Expert Evidence provided by the Football Finance Expert and at trial I would suspect a decision as follows:

1. On Nantes being vicariously liable for the actions of W.McKay the Defendants be ordered to pay Cardiff City Football club the following:
2. In respect to Quantum a sum between £1 and £132.2m (My guess would be around £80m)
3. The Defendant do also pay the Claimant costs of the case.


This is purely my view from my experience and reading Neds update


You miss an important point. The Commercial Court in Nantes will not be applying the English principle of negligence. The claim has been brought in France and is thus subject to French law.

It is also worth looking into the role that 'experts' play in French proceedings. Although they can be influential in UK proceedings, the same status is not attached to them in France.

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Fri Jan 17, 2025 12:06 pm

KairdiffsBlue. Thank you for your reply and I am honored to be the recipient of your first post on this messageboard.

You do raise an important point. UK Civil Law is different to French Civil Law but I have purposely not gone into too much detail about this because civil litigation is confusing for many here in the UK without asking people to understand the differences under the French system.

But to comment on a few points the term negligence is slightly different. Article 1240 of the French Civil System states "Any act of a person which causes damage to another obliges the one by whose fault it occurred to compensate it.". In my opinion there is not too much difference between French and UK versions and, if anything, I think negligence is easier to prove under the French system.

Another slight difference is "Duty of Care". Under the french system it doesnt apply. Whereas in the UK we rely on case law under the French system if its your fault you pay for the damages. Again I think this makes it easier for CCFC.

In both systems the test is "The balance of probabilities" but, under the French system the Judge has a greater role in the investigation of matters. In the UK a judge is neutral. In France Judges ask more questions.

In respect to damages in the UK they are compensatory and do not allow for punitive damages (something common in the US). In France damages are also compensatory but moral damages are often awarded more in the French system

This maybe why CCFCs lawyers chose to commence proceedings under the French system because it does appear easier to succeed.

Again just my view.

Re: " Cardiff City ordered to provide Sala insurance documen

Fri Jan 17, 2025 12:23 pm

Paul Keevil wrote:KairdiffsBlue. Thank you for your reply and I am honored to be the recipient of your first post on this messageboard.

You do raise an important point. UK Civil Law is different to French Civil Law but I have purposely not gone into too much detail about this because civil litigation is confusing for many here in the UK without asking people to understand the differences under the French system.

But to comment on a few points the term negligence is slightly different. Article 1240 of the French Civil System states "Any act of a person which causes damage to another obliges the one by whose fault it occurred to compensate it.". In my opinion there is not too much difference between French and UK versions and, if anything, I think negligence is easier to prove under the French system.

Another slight difference is "Duty of Care". Under the french system it doesnt apply. Whereas in the UK we rely on case law under the French system if its your fault you pay for the damages. Again I think this makes it easier for CCFC.

In both systems the test is "The balance of probabilities" but, under the French system the Judge has a greater role in the investigation of matters. In the UK a judge is neutral. In France Judges ask more questions.

In respect to damages in the UK they are compensatory and do not allow for punitive damages (something common in the US). In France damages are also compensatory but moral damages are often awarded more in the French system

This maybe why CCFCs lawyers chose to commence proceedings under the French system because it does appear easier to succeed.

Again just my view.


:occasion5: