I think the case will be heard in Leeds . The Tribunal courts are at City Exchange House on Albion Street - 5 minutes walk from the railway station.

It may be heard by a judge sitting on his/ her own or there may be a panel. That would be a judge and 2 lay members.

You are correct -most cases are open to the public. However any party can apply to the Judge to have the court " closed"to the public. The permissible reasons are pretty restricted.

I would imagine space will be tight. Four legal teams together with three respondents ( probably more than one person in each set) and the claimants( not all the 40 plus will be there) . And who knows how many witnesses will be listed to give evidence.

AS you say, the whole nub of the argument is that the 'new' company had the points deduction, were kept in the same league and had a funding deduction. These were the penalties that would have been given to the company had it been bought from the Administrator. Therefore the argument is that the new club is in fact the old club and is therefore liable. I liken the argument to buying a shop where the previous owners have gone bust. If you were to buy this shop you would not be expected to take up any of the debts of the previous owners even if the shop you open sells the same products that the old shop sold.

The difference being here though is the court case will be based on employment law and what legally can be done. The punishment handed down to new co was set by the RFL to keep everyone happy, hardly legally binding, just take it or leave it

But the employment tribunal will have to answer the question as to whether the current club are the old co or new co. That is why it is not just the new co that are going to the tribunal but also the RFL. The Administrator could also have input. It did seem that every option forwarded by the Administrator was rejected by the RFL. It could be seen that the RFL were steering the situation towards liquidation with a view to then being able to rip up existing contracts.

so if the employment tribunal rule we are in effect the old co after admin, not a new co after liquidation...do we get some points back?

This seems to be where the RFL have not answered the questions that have been asked all season namely "If this is in effect a new team how can you start them in the Championship with -12 points". It seems like an argument we have been dragged into through no fault of our own.

I'd suggest not.



It was the 'old co' which went into receivership and which was deducted the 12 points - we were stuck with the deduction after liquidation because the 'new co', ie ChaLow, accepted that condition on taking up a league place. I'd like to think questions might be asked of the RFL with, "no comment", not being an acceptable answer.

Questions need to be asked of the RFL and the new owner's as to why they would accept starting a new business with all those trade restrictions against them. Clarification from the Administrator may bring up some light to this subject. Let us hope so.

One word comes to mind



[size=150Skullduggery[/size

If there were no case to answer then it would just be a case of checking the relevant paperwork and it not getting anywhere near this far in regards to the new company. The fact that the RFL tried to get the case thrown out on a technicality kind of suggests that they are in it up to their eyeballs and it was already said that the court will not look favourably on them after what was basically described as a pretty low attempt. After this some of the pieces should start fitting in to the jigsaw although it will be the fans that are left to rep what someone else has sown once again.

So far as the "rugby penalties" are concerned, this seems pretty straightforward to me, and has nothing at all to do with issues around whether or not we are the same company (very 100% clearly, we'renot. That is in liquidation; and there is NO case to eb made that the new company is the same as the old, it's just not).



What happened was that the RFL said "If you want to join as a new member of the club AND PLAY AS BRADFORD BULLS THEN ANY team wanting to play as Bradford Bulls will be subject to the rugby penalties including the -12 points."



So, this is zero to do with "being" the old club, but a separate agreement between a new owner wanting RFL membership, and the conditions the RFL seek to impose if membership is to be granted.



I don't think the other option (start as a brand new club called something else, and begin in C1) was ever on the table)



As for the legal merits of the tribunal claims, as we haven't even seen what the stated legal claims are, it would be impossible to comment on them, and seems pretty pointless to speculate. All we know is that a legal case has been submitted making a connection between the money allegedly due to various employees of the old company, and the new company. The tribunal will need to rule if legally that connection sticks, or doesn't.



In general terms with employment claims, where some new business that looks like the old business carries on in business, you don't look so much at what labels the parties have stuck on the tins, it's what is actually in the tins. As i say, we can't comment on this case, but as to what happened before this case, around the time of our demise and rebirth, certainly I'm almost as clear as mud as to what actually happened and how, given the various announcements from the administrator, parties, RFL, the claim we'd been liquidated, then we hadn't quite, the "unauthorised" RFL discussions with buyers, player meetings with other proposed buyers, the RFL vetos/conditions, and all the other shenanigans and intrigue actually fit together.

Bradford Bulls, legal pioneers, testing the boundaries of case law since 2011!