High Court dismisses sports law firm’s application to block advertisement of winding up petition

A Manchester-based firm, whose clients include Premier League and Championship football clubs, has had its application to stop a winding up petition from being advertised dismissed by the High Court.

IPS Law LLP contested Safe Harbour Equity Distressed Debt Fund’s right to seek a winding up order. The firm argued it was assured the loan facility agreement between the parties would never be enforced and its cross claims ‘far exceeded’ the level of the petition debt of £500,000.

The firm had been engaged to act for Global Sports Data and Technology Ltd in relation to proposed claims over the alleged misuse of professional athletes’ personal data. IPS was given authority to negotiate with funders on the company’s behalf to search for funding to pursue the claims, known as Project Red Card.

Deputy ICC judge Curl KC said IPS had ‘no arguable defence’ and ‘no rational prospect of success’. He added: 'It is an example of a case where a “cloud of objections” has been raised to “obfuscate the real issues” and, despite “extensiveness and complexity” in the evidence, IPS has no arguable defence to the respondent’s claim.’

The judge said the assurances IPS senior partner Christopher Farnell, who has represented former world heavyweight champion Tyson Fury and acted on behalf of footballer Cristiano Ronaldo, said he was given by Safe Harbour ‘were not unequivocal’. Farnell’s ‘alleged interpretation [of the assurances] is either not an available one or is, at the very least, not the most likely interpretation; it is certainly not the only one available’, he said.

The judgment acknowledged the firm’s ‘failure to address what it has done with the money is troubling’ as no litigation in relation to the personal data claims has yet been brought.

Discussing the second of the firm’s grounds, the judge said: ‘In my view, it is clear (such that there is no rational prospect of showing the contrary at trial) that IPS had no enforceable right to share in the proceeds of Project Red Card and, accordingly, it suffered no damage capable of being set off against the petition debt.

‘There is no substantially triable issue on the second group of arguments because there is no rational prospect of IPS showing at trial that it had any binding contractual right to share in the proceeds of Project Red Card and, accordingly, it has no rational prospect of showing any actionable loss or damage at trial capable of being set-off against the petition debt.’

Dismissing the firm’s application, the judge said: ‘There is in my judgment no substantial dispute over the debt identified in the petition and I propose to dismiss the application to restrain advertisement.’