Deadline Dilemmas: The Crucial Role Of Limitation Periods In Manchester City’s Legal Battle

Background

The Premier League’s contentious legal battle with Manchester City is entering a critical phase as rival clubs prepare to issue legal notices reserving their rights to seek damages.

This development comes as allegations of financial rule violations against City first surfaced in November 2018, prompting concerns among other clubs to act swiftly to protect their interests during what is being termed football’s “trial of the century.” Manchester City has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing and asserts that it possesses “irrefutable evidence” supporting its innocence.

Legal context: the Limitation Act 1980

Under the Limitation Act 1980, claims must be brought within a specified period. Claims for breach of contract must generally be brought within six years from the date of the breach. Claims for negligence must generally be brought within six years from the date the loss is suffered.

In negligence claims, if the claimant was unaware of the damage that was caused by the defendant’s negligence at the time it occurred, the limitation period can be extended to three years from the claimant’s date of knowledge of the damage and the fact that damage was attributable to the negligence, however, this is subject to a longstop date of 15 years. The limitation period for fraud and concealment generally only begins from the date of the claimant’s knowledge of the fraud or concealment, subject to a longstop date of 15 years.

The six-year limitation period is a crucial aspect of club claims against City, especially since this 5 November will mark the six-year anniversary since allegations first emerged through Der Spiegel’s reports based on the Football Leaks documents.

Given the lengthy investigation and the complexity of the case, many clubs are now seeking legal advice to assess their options as they await the outcome of the ongoing independent commission’s investigation into more than 100 alleged rule breaches.

The importance of timing

In complex cases like this, where allegations involve numerous rule breaches and lengthy investigations, the limitation period acts as a double-edged sword. On one hand, it incentivises (or should) claimants to act swiftly; on the other, it may hinder legitimate claims that require extensive evidence-gathering or legal analysis.

The situation illustrates the potential pitfalls associated with limitation periods. As the November deadline approaches—marking six years since allegations first emerged—rival clubs face the pressing need to act quickly if they believe they have grounds for a claim. Delays in bringing a claim – even those that may seem reasonable due to ongoing investigations – can cause a missed limitation period. This situation will now likely compel clubs to promptly assess their options, weighing the potential benefits of waiting for the commission’s findings against the risks of missing the limitation window.

Limitation periods can be paused through a “standstill agreement,” but these require mutual consent and the Court’s approval. Given the high stakes for clubs competing with City for major trophies and European qualification, prompt decisions are crucial, and risk appetites are likely to be minimal.

Given the complex laws surrounding limitation periods, timely decision-making is critical. The Court is unlikely to express much sympathy – and any leniency – to a party that brings a claim out of time if a “limitation defence” is raised. Prompt legal advice must always be sought.