...the Restriction....the Clause...the Condition...... ...that is what our owners' problem with us boils down to. Their hands have turned out to be tied, development wise. And it seems that they can't confidently blame anyone else for their predicament. So they're playing the long game of bluff. And we're stuck in the middle. I wish someone would lay out the full legal problem here, not least because it might be interesting, if what I've been told is correct.
Well it would be breaking confidence to go too far, but from an interesting legal point of view, I was told it involved consideration as to whether the female line could enforce a covenant solely reserved for the male line - yer know, equal/human rights etc.
If it's a covenant relating to land then it attaches and binds the land. If there is a question over enforceability it is unlikely to be whether females can enforce the covenant, but whether a stipulation that only females can enforce it prevents it from being a valid covenant and binding the land in the first place.
It's nothing to do with whether only females can enforce it. As I understand it. Rather the opposite. There are no males left. The females are seeking to claim that a covenant in favour of the male line applies to them too.
If there were some unknown covenant then that would have been found at the due diligence stage by their legal team. The sporting covenant is well known and has been for years. If something was missed I suspect there would be a very public suing of the legal team that missed it. Do they have similar legal problems at all the other clubs they are running into the ground.
what I’d do, if I was sworn to secrecy is post about it on a bulletin board talking about stuff I know but aren’t allowed to say… thst what id do
It's not the sport covenant. And it's nice, being a lawyer, to see that you have such faith in the legal team you may choose to employ. Remember also the Angus MacDonald fiasco - not exactly a ringing endorsement of our legal team was it?
If the covenant is from after 1925 then they will almost certainly be able to enforce it pursuant to s.78 of the Law of Property Act 1925. If it's from before then the position may be less clear, however there will also likely to be an argument that the covenant is obsolete and/or prevents a reasonable use of the land in which case the other party may be able to get it discharged/varied via an application to the Upper Tribunal. Either party can also apply to the UT for a declaration as to whether the covenant is enforceable, and if so, by whom (s.84(2)(b) LPA 1925)
Apparently it's from ages ago. I'm not sure how you can filter down or eliminate hereditary entitlements so easily, but there we go. More evidence is required. Although I may have been told a load of bull. I have seen nothing on any pre-reg or Land Reg docs - not tried to look. Just chucking it out there so's we can understand the reasons why we're rotting away.
Yep. And his first Royal duty will be to explain the rules of rugby union to you. Which may take a while.
I would have thought the bigger problem is not any covenants, it's that they don't own the stadium or the land or anything really.