This is an extract of our Chief Constable Of The Greater Manchester Police V. Wegan Athletic Afc document, which we sell as part of our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
OF THE WEGAN
GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE V. ATHLETIC AFC
FACTS The defendant and appellant ("the Club") is a premier league football club with a home ground at a stadium in Wigan known as the JJB Stadium. In order that football matches may be played at the stadium it is necessary for the Stadium Company to be the holder of a certificate under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. The certificate in force for the seasons with which this appeal is concerned, namely 2003/04 and 2004/05, required the Stadium Company to secure at its expense the attendance of "such number of police officers as in the opinion of the Chief Constable is sufficient to ensure orderly behaviour of spectators". The Club had been promoted at the end of the 2002/03 season from Division 2 to Division 1 with the consequence that additional policing at home matches was likely to be required. Before and during the 2003/04 season there were a number of meetings between Mr Mason and other representatives of the Chief Constable and Mrs Spencer, the Chief Executive of the Club, and Mr David Whelan, the chairman of the Club and principal shareholder in the Stadium Company, at which the representatives of the Club refused to pay for policing over and above the levels of policing enjoyed in previous seasons. Notwithstanding these objections policing was provided by or on behalf of the Chief Constable at a higher level, that is to say by the deployment of more officers than in the previous season. Such levels were discussed at pre-match safety meetings and reflected in post match invoices. In January 2005 the Chief Constable threatened to bring proceedings against the Club for the recovery of the unpaid balance of the cost of policing actually provided. HOLDING THE CHANCELLOR I prefer the submissions of counsel for the Club. It is clear both from the terms of s.25 and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Reading Festival that 'the request' must match the special police services supplied. The match need not be exact because it is for the Chief Constable to determine the level of policing required. So, if a person asks the police authority to provide special police services at a private event and the services are provided at the level the police authority considers to be necessary it is no answer to the police authority's claim for reimbursement of the costs that the request had not specified the level of policing actually supplied.
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes.