The Lawyer Asia Pacific 150 is the only research report to provide a ranking of the top 100 independent local firms and top 50 global firms in the region. The report offers critical review of some of the fastest growing firms and their strategies, a country-by-country guide to leading legal advisers and legal services market trends, plus exclusive insight into the current business development opportunities in the Asia Pacific. Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
The article in The Lawyer 1 November, 'A sporting chance of success', argued that the outcome of the O'Neill v Fashanu case had opened the door to sports injury claims and that the settlement was a good one from John O'Neill's point of view.
I acted for Dean Saunders and Liverpool Football Club in the action brought against them by Paul Elliott, and also represented John Fashanu and Wimbledon Football Club in the proceedings brought by John O'Neill.
First, it is not true to say that the Elliott v Saunders case closed the door to sports injury claims. Justice Drake made it clear in his judgment that every case depends on its own facts and that the decision would not prevent other actions from being brought.
Second, if a claimant can prove 'intention' - that the defendant intended to injure or foul him, then he will almost certainly succeed. If he can prove 'recklessness' - complete disregard for the safety of another, he will also be likely to succeed. However, all potential claimants should be aware that these are difficult to prove, particularly in football. Thus it is wrong to say the O'Neill v Fashanu settlement has changed anything.
It is also wrong to infer that the settlement has weakened the defendants' position. The settlement of u70,000 was a commercial one for the defendants and was not based on any apportionment of liability.
The article omits the fact that the u70,000 offer included O'Neill's legal costs. I am prevented by a confidentiality agreement from discussing the terms of settlement. However, as the plaintiff's solicitor has admitted in the article that total costs would certainly have run into six figures, I think it is clear why the defendants saw this as favourable.
Elliot v Saunders was successfully defended by the defendants and O'Neill v Fashanu was settled by the defendants on favourable terms.
If similar cases are pursued they will be dealt with in the same way as the defendants maintain that the burden of proof that is on the claimant is difficult to discharge.