In what would be termed in footballing terminology as a ‘thrashing’, Anthony Pulis (‘Pulis’) the ex-Crystal Palace Football Club (‘the club’) manager was ordered to pay £3.77 Million pounds to his ex-employers. This follows his unsuccessful appeal1 of the Premier League Managers’ Arbitration Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) to the High Court. Yasin Patel looks at the case and its far-reaching implications.
Background
The issues in the arbitration concerned Pulis’s departure from ‘the club’ in August 2014, and the events leading up to it. Under his contract of employment Pulis was due to be paid a bonus of £2 million gross, if
- he successfully kept ‘the club’ in the Premier League after the 2013/2014 season.
- he remained in employment at ‘the club’ on 31 August 2014.
Tribunal
The ‘Tribunal’ was facilitated under the FA’s Rule K Arbitrations: a method of resolving disputes without going to court which usually ensures confidentiality. In the initial ‘Tribunal’ in March, it was clear there were two main areas of dispute between the parties. The first, by reference to two alleged fraudulent misrepresentations, consisted of the claim by ‘the club’ that ‘Pulis’ had deceived it into paying him his bonus early. On the 8th August, he had assured the Chairman of ‘the club’, Mr Parish, he was committed to the club and would consequently be remaining until at least 31 August 2014 (the first fraudulent misrepresentation); and that he urgently needed the money early so that he could buy some land for his children (the second misrepresentation).
The second area was that each side alleged the other had repudiated the Pulis’ employment contract. ‘The club’ relied upon Pulis’s fraud in relation to the bonus, and contended in addition that he had refused to take control in respect of the upcoming Arsenal game, the first game of the season, on 16 August 2014, leaving it no choice but to appoint another manager.
The Arbitrators in the ‘Tribunal’ found in ‘the club’s’ favour and awarded a total of £3.77 Million including legal costs and damages.
Appeal
‘Pulis’ decided to appeal the Tribunal’s decision on two grounds: liability and quantum. The appeal was made by way of section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. It was alleged by ’Pulis’ that there had been a ‘serious irregularity’ in the awarding by the original ‘Tribunal. He relied upon the following sections:
- A party to arbitral proceedings may ... apply to the court challenging an award in the proceedings on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award....
- Serious irregularity means an irregularity of one or more of the following kinds which the court considers has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant.
Judgment
Like most arbitration claims, this was a hearing that was held in private. However, the Learned judge decided that this was an appropriate case where the judgment should be given in open court. In doing so, the scathing criticism from the ‘Tribunal’ of ‘Pulis’s’ evidence, arguments, submissions and the obvious flaws in his case were exposed. Three Paragraphs in particular, paragraphs 139 – 141 are deeply critical of ‘Pulis’ and his actions. In the first, it is said,
The Panel also concludes that Mr Pulis was not telling Mr Parish the truth when he told him on 8 August that he was happy and committed to the Club and would be there on 31 August. The Panel has rejected his case that the Heated Players' Meeting occurred on 12 August and that was the reason for his apparently sudden change in mind from being happy and committed to the Club on 8 August to wanting to leave on 13 August. It is simply not credible that he could honestly say that he was happy and committed to the Club on 8 August and have changed his mind so completely by 13 August, when nothing had happened other than him having received £2 million from the Club. (…)
In paragraph 140 of their judgment they stated,
The Panel therefore concludes that Mr Pulis deliberately misled Mr Parish concerning his intentions on 8 August with the intention of persuading him to authorise early payment of his bonus. The Panel also accepts that the Club relied on Mr Pulis' representations and assurances both as to his intentions and as to his supposed pressing need for payment in making early payment. If Mr Pulis had told the Club the truth concerning the supposed property transaction or about the state of his intentions, the Club would not have arranged early payment of his bonus. The Panel concludes that Mr Pulis' motive in misleading the Club was to secure early repayment of his bonus."
In paragraph 141 they added:
It is not satisfied that he was candid with the Tribunal as to his real reason for seeking to leave. It is much more likely that he intended to seek more lucrative employment with another Club and that is the real reason he sought early payment of his bonus, rather than an urgent need for the money for a non-existent land transaction."
They added in the Final Award that;
By any standards his conduct (prior to and during the litigation) has been shown to be disgraceful."
Of all the criticism made of Pulis, it is this last sentence which is very damaging. His character, conduct, actions, evidence and motives are all challenged and criticized.
So why the open judgment? The Learned Judge had good authority2 to do so however, I think there was more than that in this case. It was the nature of ‘Pulis’ departure and his conduct thereafter that were hugely significant. In addition, the interest of other parties was at stake as well as the wider interests of the public. Rather than accept the detailed judgment that was provided with its full and compelling reasons, Pulis decided to appeal it. He had gone from the privacy of the Arbitration to the possible open doors of the courts: here, the veil of truth would be revealed.
Football is a multi-billion pounds industry and managers are a very important fulcrum in the success and failures of a team’s fortunes. Clubs are followed by thousands of fans and some clubs play a significant role in the community. Thus, preparation for a new season is fundamental and when a manager leaves a few hours before the season starts, this can have huge ramifications for a club and its employees, as was the case here. One of the key questions that Sir Michael Burton had to ask himself, ‘was it in the public interest that the judgement be open’. Here, he decided, yes. Maybe because the club’s supporters (many thousands of them) deserved to know the truth as to what happened. Here they were informed.
But there is more. There was ‘misrepresentation’ to the club for the sake of ‘greed’ and having obtained the money, there was abandonment. Pulis’s actions were described as ‘disgraceful’ by the ‘Tribunal’. Not just for one act, but several. This is crucial in this respect. And having had the judgment from the First Tier, he decided to appeal the matter. Taking all of these acts together, it feels that the Learned Judge has allowed all who are interested in this case to see the ‘real facts’ behind the departure and judge for themselves the actions of all the interested parties.
Conclusion
Pulis is still in employment: manager of a West Bromwich Albion side who are having a successful season in the Premiership and in the top-half of the table. The performance of his side enhances his reputation on the pitch. But off it, this judgment is highly damaging of his character and actions. It lays bare, a side of his character that any future ‘employer’ will now be aware of. In particular, when it comes to agreeing contracts and clauses for success/failure.
It could be said that in Sir Michael Burton’s eyes, ‘justice should be done and seen to be done’ and thus the open judgment. In this case, the initial decision reached by the ‘Tribunal’ was persuasive, compelling and very well-reasoned. None of which could be said for ‘Pulis’ arguments and hence his heavy defeat.
Yasin Patel is a Barrister and a Director of SLAM (Sports, Law and Media).
1 [2016] EWHC 2999 (Comm)
2 Department of Economic Policy & Development of the City of Moscow v Bankers Trust Company [2005] QB 207