Following the announcement last week that Tottenham Hotspur intend to continue to argue the club's entitlement to bring a claim for judicial review, it appears that the club may face legal action in respect of allegations the bid process may have been tainted because an Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) employee had worked for West Ham.
The employee in question has been suspended on full pay whilst an investigation is launched into any possible conflict of interest. West Ham has stated that it had already carried out its own investigation into the employee's role with the club and has now indicated its intention to take action against both Spurs and the Sunday Times newspaper in respect of the allegations.
Comment
Inevitably, Spurs may seek to reference the alleged conflict of interest as they continue to seek a judicial review remedy. An initial application was rejected last week by Mr Justice Davies; however, Spurs are expected to make further submissions at an oral hearing towards the end of July.
As the Sport Lawyer commented in edition 33, the bid process, and any impropriety during that process, will be crucial when it comes to determining whether or not the decision should be reviewed. The board voted 14-0 in favour of West Ham's bid, and the OPLC has stated that the employee had no involvement in the decision making process. West Ham will itself point to a transparent tender process for the work carried out by the employee for the club (relating to the procurement process for the stadium construction process). Therefore, any judicial review claim could be countered with an argument that the commercial connection between West Ham and the employee had no bearing on the decision and indeed on the basis that the employee had no access to bid documentation or board members. The strength of those counter arguments will ultimately depend on what the investigation reveals, but crucially, in the immediate term at least, it could strengthen Spurs' position at the hearing later this month.
The contents of this article are intended as guidelines for clients and other readers. It is not a substitute for considered advice on specific issues. Consequently, we cannot accept any responsibility for this information or for any errors or omissions.
Thomas Eggar LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC326278 whose registered office is at The Corn Exchange, Baffin's Lane, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1GE (VAT number 991259583). The word 'partner' refers to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. A list of the members of the LLP is displayed at the above address, together with a list of those non-members who are designated as partners. Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Lexcel and Investors in People accredited.
Thomas Eggar LLP is not authorised by the Financial Services Authority. However, we are included on the register maintained by the Financial Services Authority so that we can carry on insurance mediation activity which is broadly the advising on, selling and administering of insurance contracts. This part of our business, including arrangements for complaints and redress if something goes wrong, is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The register can be accessed via the Financial Services Authority website. We can also provide certain further limited investment services to clients if those services are incidental to the professional services we have been engaged to provide as solicitors.
Thesis Asset Management plc, our associated financial services company, provides a comprehensive range of investment services and advice. Thesis is owned by members of Thomas Eggar LLP but is independent of and separate to it. No lawyer connected with Thomas Eggar LLP provides services through Thesis as a practicing lawyer regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Thesis is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Thesis has its own framework of investor protection and professional indemnity cover but Thesis clients do not enjoy the statutory protection of solicitors' clients.
