OI! MKJames

[AFF]

What's the inside story on this court case, Leyton FC vs Enfield Town FC?

 

There were some stories last season about ill-feeling between the two and I recall something about handbags between the Leyton Chairman and 'The Chairman You Always Wanted'.

[MK James]

 

Oi AFF, firstly this has sod all to do with St. Albans!

 

And secondly nowt to do with me. I'm Enfield FC, NOT Town!

 

Although I have to say I am watching this with interest, from what I can gather Leyton are sueing ETFC for libel, stems from some comments made at some games a couple of seasons ago I believe. That's all I know, but the truth will out soon enough.

 

 

[EFM The Firm, The Voice]

Libel, Libel

How does this work?

 

Did somebody print in the program that the chairman was gay or something, did they print that they played badly when they actually played well, how does this work.

[AFF]

Hi EFMTFTV.

 

The case is listed as "Sophocleous vs. Reed & anr".

 

So, Mr Sophocleous, who is the Chairman of Leyton is bringing the action [for libel, apparently] against Mr Reed [who is a big cheese at Enfield Town] and 'another'. Who is the another, I wonder?

 

If it's libel' it's the written word. It could be the publisher of a newspaper, perhaps. The programme, maybe.

 

Where is mdetaylor when you need him?

[MK James]

 

The another is the club itself AFF. I can't find any old threads discussing the game that kicked this all off, perhaps they've been deleted!

 

Anyway the case continues today...

[mdetaylor]

Don't ask me

[The one & only BigRon,EFM]

Interesting point in your second note AFF. If it's the programme, then the case will almost certainly involve 'The Chairman They Always Wanted', as he prints the thing. My understanding of libel law is that the 'printer' or 'publisher' is often just as guilty as the 'writer' or 'editor'.

 

Unless ... of course ... you know better.

[AFF]

HI Big Ron.

 

No. The 'anr' is Enfield Town FC or whatever it's called, according to MKJames.

 

But it's libel and that is the written word. If 'anr' is the club, it can't be something from a newspaper or, heaven forbid, the ESL programme of the year.

 

By deduction, it must be something written to the Greek by the club. I wonder if it's anything to do with the closing of one of the terraces at Leyton's ground when there was less than the usual hospitality shown by the hosts to visiting dignitaries?

 

News soon, no doubt.

[The one & only BigRon,EFM]

Your process of deduction is as astute as ever AFF, I bow to your superiority. Although be absolutely 100% sure of your sources. Remember, you've made that mistake before.

 

Anyway, the 'hospitality' and 'dignatories' threads you are musing are (IMO) off track. There may be something in this writing lark though. That said, 'The Chairman They Always Wanted' has got to be in there somewhere. I'll investigate and report back.

[MK James]

 

1. The thread has been locked on the Town forum. Hmm.

 

2. I am lead to believe it's a libel case, but it may be slander. Information about this is not exactly going to be easiiy got hold of.

[AFF]

I would have thought that information will be very easily available after the verdict is announced, MKJ. I'm surprised that there are no rumours circulating already.

 

Thinking about Big Ron's helpful contribution earlier, I think that libel involves a 'published statement' and I wouldn't have thought that a private letter from one to another qualifies. If it's not the local rag or the ESL Programme of the Year, perhaps it's the web-site. Now that would be interesting. It may explain why there is such rigorous censorship.

 

Slander is a false statement uttered maliciously that damages a person's reputation. For the sake of example only, "Push off you little Greek" hardly qualifies, either, I would have thought, presupposing that the person addressed is Greek and is vertically challenged. "Push off you little Turk" said to a Greek is likely to incite, however, rather than be considered slanderous.

 

mdetaylor is usually good at this sort of stuff but perhaps he has privileged knowledge.

 

 

[The Invisible Man]

FYI, although I could not discuss an ongoing court case even if I knew anything about it, obviously, there is no "heavy censorship", and I wonder where you got that idea. You ill understand that the matter is sub judice though.

 

You won't find the threads from the date of the match away to Leyton because we were on the Bravenet thing then.

[MK James]

And have since been deleted. The Bravenet forum can still be accessed.

 

Just curious.

 

[AFF]

What a useful chap you are to have around, MKJ.

 

One things for sure. 2+ days in the High Court doesn't come cheap. mdetaylor could assist in that regard.

 

News, soon, no doubt.

[mdetaylor]

Not just the cost of the case but also the costs of getting there (although it depends if Sue, Grabbit & Run have been instructed or, shall we say, a more reputable firm).

 

I have a feeling that a letter can still count as published material - there has to be damage to reputation though so it depends who reads it I imagine.

 

Not studied tort (or defamation at least) for 6 years - mde.

[AFF]

Now don't be coy, mdet.

 

3 day libel/slander case in the High Court? £10,000 per day, including all legals? Rule of thumb?

 

£25/30,000?

 

Oh, by the way. Obviously if I write to you making an untruthful accusation about you, and I copy the letter to 30 or so associates, that would be libelous. Alternatively, if i write to you and you show the letter to others, that's a horse of a different colour.

 

No, it will be something more straightforward than that, I imagine.

[mdetaylor]

Not convinced I followed any of that

[AFF]

Sorry if that was over-complex, mdet.

 

One question at a time:

 

As a wild stab in the dark, purely as a guide, without prejudice, mutatis mutandis, and with no obligation to any party, living or dead, what would you estimate to be the very approximate total cost in legal and court fees of a 3 day hearing in the High Court of a libel/slander case?

 

A range of +/- £5000 will be entirely satisfactory.

[Guest]

Mutatis Mutandis. Beautiful to see. Res ipsa loquitor if ever I saw it. Costs? Too many variables - experience of counsel will determine daily retainer - no. of solicitors sitting behind him and respective seniorty will also affect cost. Then again if you are successful in the claim - costs in the cause - you ain't gonna pay nufink.

[AFF]

Thanks for that, White Knight.

 

Let's just say that a sum in the very approximate region of £25,000 would be appropriate for discussion purposes. It surely won't go into a 4th day.

 

Some libel [allegedly].