The High Court has today agreed to speed up a legal challenge about the government’s decision to delay the reopening of indoor hospitality until 17th May.
After the government had argued against expedition of the case this morning – a response which Mrs Justice Eady disagreed with and stated that “there is a need to expedite consideration of this matter if the challenge is not to be rendered academic by passage of time” – it has been confirmed that the case will now be put before a Judge of the High Court for consideration during the week commencing Monday 19th April 2021.
The decision was issued in response to Greater Manchester’s Night Time Economy Adviser, Sacha Lord – who is also the co-founder of Parklife Festival and Warehouse Project – and Punch Taverns founder Hugh Osmond.
The pair notably joined forces last month to take the government to court over hospitality restrictions as they argued that bars, restaurants and cafes should be allowed to provide indoor service on the same date as non-essential retail reopens.
Under the government’s roadmap for lifting England’s current national lockdown, the hospitality sector can resume outdoor service from 12th April – but they must wait until 17th May to welcome customers indoors.
ADVERTISEMENT
It’s estimated that the delay in reopening indoor hospitality could cost the sector £7 billion over the five weeks.
Mr Lord – who has continuously claimed over the last month that the government has been unable to provide evidence for their reasoning behind the roadmap – took to social media this afternoon to express his delight at the decision to expedite the case.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Today is a win for hospitality” he said.
The response from the High Court today comes after it was announced that Health Secretary Matt Hancock had been summoned to file a response as a matter of urgency to Mr Lord’s ongoing legal battle before 10am today.
This was required to be submitted “with no concessions for the Bank Holiday”.
ADVERTISEMENT
In the response received this morning, the Health Secretary stated that the department “opposes the case” and that there is “no proper basis for expedition” of the case, as well as noting that “the Court is asked to refuse the Claimants’ request for expedition and to allow the claim to proceed on the normal timetable for judicial review.”
Mr Lord said in a statement addressing the High Court’s decision however: “We are pleased with the Judge’s decision today to expedite the case and believe the Government’s response this morning was yet another stalling tactic to divert attention away from the lack of scientific data to justify the ongoing closures.
“With non-essential retail opening on Monday, there is clearly a firm basis for the case to be heard immediately.
“The government has continuously failed to introduce any new evidence as to why indoor hospitality cannot open on 12th April alongside non-essential retail, or any justification for their prioritisation of retail over hospitality.
“While I’m pleased outdoor hospitality remains on course to reopen on Monday, there are thousands of operators who do not have outdoor space or the financial capability for outdoor set up, and are therefore forced to stay closed for a further five weeks [which] we estimate affects around 60% of all operators, many of whom will cease trading as a result.
ADVERTISEMENT
“These same operators have spent millions of pounds creating COVId secure environments and we firmly believe these regulated venues have much safer measures in place than most retail stores.
“We will now look forward to the next phase of the case on 19 April.”
News
Manchester City win watershed case against Premier League over sponsorship rules
Danny Jones
Manchester City have landed an early blow in what is set to be a long and arduous series of legal proceedings over the coming months as they have won a case against the Premier League over their rules around sponsorship and related party transactions.
The current English champions, who have won a record four Premier League titles in a row, launched legal action against the division back in June after claiming that their restrictions around Associated Party Transactions (APT) rules and sponsorships were unfair and unlawful.
Now, as it turns out, an independent panel of three retired judges ultimately concluded that the rules were unlawful and, at least in part, contrary to the Competition Act 1998.
The details of the case are obviously numerous and complex but, in short, it has been found that Man City were unfairly blocked from moving forward with two huge sponsorship deals earlier this year.
BREAKING: Man City has won their legal challenge against the Premier League's Associated Party Transaction rules, which surrounds commercial deals between clubs and their related companies 🚨 pic.twitter.com/ZevrXvOOhd
Although the outcome has been somewhat debated by the league itself, it was decided that the imposed regulations were unfair and “discriminatory in how they operate, because they deliberately excluded shareholder loans.”
Issuing a statement following the decision, the Premier League said they “welcome the Tribunal’s findings, which endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system”, adding that it also “upheld the need for the APT system as a whole and rejected the majority of City’s challenges” while reiterating that the rules are necessary for their “financial controls to be effective”.
They went on to add that “the decision represents an important and detailed assessment of the APT Rules, which ensure clubs are not able to benefit from commercial deals or reductions in costs that are not at Fair Market Value (FMV) by virtue of relationships with Associated Parties.”
Meanwhile, the City Football Group responded to the news in a series of bullet points, insisting that the “Premier League was found to have abused its dominant position, […] had reached the decisions in a procedurally unfair manner” and that they will now have to “restate the fair market value of two transactions entered into by the Club.”
Safe to say people have noted quite a distinct difference in tone when it comes to statements from the two parties regarding associated parties and their transactions with clubs but, nevertheless, it’s a victory for the Manc club could have a huge knock-on effect regarding how much teams can spend in the future.
Quite a contrast in wording between the statements from Man City (left) and the Premier League (right) on findings related to Associated Party Transaction rules. pic.twitter.com/H3QkHlwMGM
The Premier League have also reassured that two particular aspects of the existing rules that didn’t fully comply with the Competition Act will be rectified promptly and will be “conducting a process that can allow the league and clubs to enact those specific changes quickly and effectively”.
Not only does this mean that CFG is likely to restart conversations with the two blocked parties – one being the Etihad Group and another with a bank based in Abu Dhabi – but that other clubs could now potentially look into further lucrative sponsorship deals, although ‘fair market value’ will still be assessed.
You can read page 164 of the document which summarises the full Tribunal HERE.
Meanwhile, the still outstanding case against Man City over their 115 charges regarding FFP breaches has now begun, though a decision is still a ways off.
Date set for Manchester’s move to London-style ‘touch in, touch out’ public transport system
Emily Sergeant
The date for Manchester’s switch to a London-style ‘touch in, touch out’ public transport system has officially been set.
With just three months to go until all buses in Greater Manchester are back under local control, Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) has now set the date for the introduction of capped contactless payments on the Bee Network in a bid to “support multi-modal travel”, and it’s already being described as a “huge step forward”.
TfGM believes contactless pay-as-you-go systems on buses and trams will make travel easier overall, as it’ll guarantee passengers pay the right fare for their journey.
But how exactly will it work?
Coming soon, contactless Pay As You Go on #BeeNetwork buses. Travel seamlessly between bus and tram, with fares automatically worked out for you.
🟡 Pay no more than the daily or weekly cap for your journeys (adult fares) 🟡 Unlimited daily travel by bus for £5 a day pic.twitter.com/dOa8o96vqA
Well, similar to how customers currently travel on the Metrolink, passengers will be able to use their bank card or smart payment device to touch in on all Bee Network bus services, and rest assured knowing that they will only be charged the lowest fare up to the daily cap of £5, or the new weekly cap of £20.
Under the new system, people travelling by Bee Network bus will simply ‘touch on’ as they board the service.
Not only that, but passengers will also be able to travel across both Metrolink and Bee Network bus services at the same time, and only be charged a single multi-modal fare, instead of having to plan or buy tickets in advance – which is similar to travelling in London.
Passengers who use both Bee Network bus and Metrolink can use pay as you go for unlimited all-day travel across Greater Manchester, which is expected to cost a maximum of £9.50, or £7.80 if you start your journey after 9:30am or at weekends.
Journeys will be cheaper if travelling across fewer Metrolink zones.
For the time being, TfGM has confirmed that pay as you go travel will operate with adult fares only, but this may be rolled-out to others in the future.
“Pay as you go will be launching across Bee Network buses to build on the system that has been in place on the Metrolink since 2019,” explained Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham.
“This is a massive step forward in terms of delivering a London-style transport network for the people of Greater Manchester, putting our region on par with not only the capital, but also major cities across the world that offer seamless integrated travel by public transport.”
Mr Burnham also said it’ll be “affordable and easier to pay for”, and will ultimately “take the worry out of choosing the right ticket”.