Mike Ashley awaits legal bills decision with Rangers chairman Dave King and SFA
Thursday 28 April 2016 17:03, UK
Billionaire businessman Mike Ashley is awaiting a civil judge's decision on whether he has to pay the legal bills of the Scottish FA and Rangers chairman Dave King.
The Sports Direct supremo abandoned a legal action on Thursday in which he wanted to challenge the SFA's decision to class Dave King as a "fit and proper person" for involvement with the Ibrox side.
He decided to drop the action after his legal team received information about King's finances which the SFA used in their May 2015 deliberations.
However, judge Lord Bannatyne is considering legal submissions made by lawyers acting for the SFA and King during proceedings at the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Thursday. They argued that the Newcastle United owner is using the legal system to pursue a "vendetta" against King.
Advocate Roddy Dunlop QC for the SFA and King's counsel, Kenneth McGuire, argue that Ashley's alleged conduct and his decision to drop the proceedings should result in him meeting costs.
Mr Dunlop told the court: "It is my submission that the petitioner in this case is pursuing a personal vendetta against Mr King and that my clients, the respondents, are simply the collateral damage in pursuit of this vendetta."
The case heard in court on Thursday was brought by MASH Holdings Limited, the company which is the ownership mechanism in which Mike Ashley holds his Rangers shares.
Ashley believed the SFA should not have allowed King to participate in the day to day running of Rangers because of his tax convictions in South Africa. The businessman admitted to 41 breaches of the South African Income Tax Act and agreed to pay a £43.7m settlement in 2013 following a legal battle there.
Ashley originally wanted a Court of Session judge to rule that the SFA's decision was "irrational" but on Thursday Ashley's lawyer, Craig Sandison QC, told the court that his client had decided to abandon the action.
He told the court that the SFA had provided his client with information concerning King's finances in the last week. The court heard that Scottish football's governing body had originally refused to disclose the information to Ashley and that it had been its position since June last year.
The court also heard that this information was used by the SFA to conclude that Mr King was a "fit and proper person". Mr Sandison told the court that in the light of the information, Ashley no longer wished to pursue the judicial review.
Mr Sandison also said that if Ashley had been supplied with the information earlier, he would have stopped proceedings at an earlier stage.
He added: "He continues to believe that it was an extraordinary decision but he now no longer wishes to pursue the judicial review. If the respondent had disclosed the information at an earlier stage then the petition would not have been raised."
Mr Sandison argued that the court should allow Ashley not to pay the expenses incurred by the SFA and by King, saying his client had raised the judicial review because he wanted to act in what he thought was Rangers' best interests.
However, Mr Dunlop told the court that legal precedents meant that people in Ashley's position of abandoning cases in the Court of Session should pay costs. The advocate said he did not know until early on Wednesday afternoon that Ashley had decided not to proceed with the action.
He added: "We were told yesterday at mid-day that this was not proceeding. This will not do. MASH have conducted themselves irresponsibly and it should have to pay expenses.
"MASH cannot demonstrate in law that the decision of the SFA is irrational. It seems that MASH are conducting a personal vendetta against Mr King."
Mr McGuire also urged the court to order Ashley to pay the full costs of King's and the SFA's representation. He said Ashley was attacking the personal character of King and that they did not have any evidence to prove that his client was not a "fit and proper" person.
Mr McGuire added that the information disclosed to Ashley was "privileged" and that his client had agreed to its disclosure.
He added: "Mr Ashley is conducting a personal vendetta against Mr King. It is an attack on the personal character of Mr King. If successful it would have a tremendous effect on Mr King's relationships within the world of football and the world of business. It's nothing more than mudslinging."
In response, Mr Sandison said that his client was not acting maliciously against King and urged Lord Bannatyne to reject the submissions made by Mr Dunlop and Mr McGuire, adding: "There is absolutely no evidence or details of a vendetta between the two."
Lord Bannatyne will issue his decision on whether Mr Ashley should pay legal costs in a written judgement which will be issued in the near future, saying: "I am taking this to avisandum."
