Wed Jan 15, 2025 5:55 pm
Wed Jan 15, 2025 6:03 pm
Wed Jan 15, 2025 6:31 pm
Wed Jan 15, 2025 6:34 pm
Wed Jan 15, 2025 7:03 pm
Wed Jan 15, 2025 7:05 pm
Wed Jan 15, 2025 8:01 pm
Wed Jan 15, 2025 8:16 pm
Wed Jan 15, 2025 8:21 pm
Forever Blue wrote:Reply:
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?
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
Wed Jan 15, 2025 9:25 pm
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
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
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?
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
Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:02 pm
Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:08 pm
Thu Jan 16, 2025 12:21 am
Einstein wrote:Any idea on timing of the judgement, then I guess appeals
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
Fri Jan 17, 2025 12:06 pm
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.