EXPLAINED: 115 - when, what and how? A guide to the inevitable appeals

Only one more year to go?

“Are we nearly there yet?” they moan from the back seats. Yes, nearly. Or perhaps not.

In the real world (for example in the High Court), the judicial decision of a 12 week complex civil trial could take a year or more to be handed down. In football law, it is worth remembering that the result of the Associated Party Transaction hearing in 2024 took 3 months to appear after a 2 week hearing. The decisions on the follow-on APT questions also took months. The wheels of the litigation world turn slowly. Nobody can say they weren’t warned - I wrote this for the Mail on Sunday four years ago, before City were even charged.

The decision itself was never coming before March. After the April internationals, it was probably never coming before the Summer. Yes, the Independent Commission (“IC”) is just that, independent, but it is also part of the internal processes of the Premier League and they do understand the concept of a football calendar. So, if I had to guess, I would think a judgment is now imminent.

The quicker the decision the more likely it is to mean a City win - if the PL has proven the substantive and serious matters, the tribunal will need to ensure the judgment is exceptionally strong - the findings will be damning and highly sensitive so it will need a huge amount of work to finalise that document.

Either way, the judgment will run to hundreds of pages and will consider each allegation, each witness and each significant argument in detail. The deliberations and writing up of the decision have already taken six months as I write but if The Lawyer magazine is correct, the initial hearing was only to consider liability - ie did City breach the rules in respect of any or all of the 115 charges or not. The FT appeared to confirm this when, in March 2025, it published an interview with Richard Masters. The Premier League reminded me that there was no quote in the piece on this point and that the process was confidential.

Doing the splits

A liability hearing is the stage in a disciplinary process where the primary question is whether a breach or misconduct has actually occurred. The focus is on establishing the facts and determining responsibility. Both sides present their evidence and arguments: the party alleging the breach explains the complaint and provides supporting evidence, while the accused party is given the opportunity to respond, present their own evidence, ask questions, and call witnesses if necessary. The hearing is designed to ensure fairness, allowing both sides to make their case before any decision about liability is made. The outcome of a liability hearing is a determination of whether the alleged misconduct or rule breach is proven.

A sanction hearing takes place only after liability has been established—that is, once it has been determined that a breach or misconduct has occurred. The purpose of this hearing is to decide what penalty or sanction, if any, should be imposed. The panel or decision-maker considers a range of factors, including the seriousness of the breach, any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the conduct of the parties (such as admission (and its timing) or cooperation), and relevant guidelines or precedents for the sanction.

Given the extraordinary complexity and scale of the case - 115 separate charges spanning alleged breaches of financial rules over nearly a decade - the “trial’ against City was likely split into distinct phases to ensure a fair, orderly, and manageable process.

Why split liability and sanction?

In such a vast case, a single hearing attempting to address both whether City were liable for each alleged breach and, if so, what sanctions should follow, would be unworkable due to the sheer volume of evidence, legal arguments, factual disputes involved and liability scenarios. By dividing the proceedings, the IC could first focus exclusively on the question of liability: examining whether the club had, in fact, committed the alleged breaches by assessing the evidence and arguments for each charge. Only after reaching conclusions on liability will the IC move to a separate sanction hearing, allowing both sides to present arguments and evidence specifically related to the seriousness of any proven breaches (if any) and the appropriate penalties. This phased approach is standard in complex regulatory and disciplinary matters, as it avoids prejudging sanctions before liability is established and allows for a more detailed and transparent consideration of both issues.

Everton and Forest were just sanction hearings

There has been a lot of discussion comparing the timelines in Everton’s and Nottingham Forest’s cases. The reality is that both cases were, in effect, sanction hearings because by the time the hearings kicked off, liability had been admitted. It is very often missed by fans of those clubs that both clubs admitted the breaches.

Even when we know, we won’t know

A split trial ordinarily means that once the lengthy liability decision is in, the preparations will begin for a sanction hearing. Diarising a sanction hearing is not a straightforward exercise either. The respective teams of KCs and other barristers are busy professionals with their own season of work in the Autumn. So are the members of the IC. It is possible that it could take some months for the parties to find workable timings for a sanction hearing. Furthermore, the barristers will expect to be given ample preparation time and even more if the breaches established (if any) are serious and numerous.

Sequencing

It is not clear in the PL Rules whether a party could appeal the liability judgment immediately, thereby stalling the sanction hearing until the outcome of that appeal. If any of the more serious charges were proven against City, permitting a liability appeal before the initial sanction process could make some commercial sense for both sides even if it is highly unusual from a legal perspective. Such an approach would avoid a situation where a serious sanction was handed down that was immediately subject to a vast appeal. This could result in both parties agreeing on the sequencing of any appeals and sanctions.

2026?

Either way, it is now looking like we may not have a final pre-appeal decision on both liability and sanction before the close of 2025 and at worst, for both City and the Premier League, there remains a risk that the case hangs over another entire season. City’s approach has been “business as usual” as they continue to invest heavily in both footballers and infrastructure. They are certainly projecting an incredibly confident front having signed extended contracts for Haaland and Guardiola whilst spending £700m on players, a new tier of the stadium and a hotel and entertainment plaza.

Nevertheless, no amount of braggadocio would or could hide a materially adverse liability verdict. Frenzied lobbying and speculation as to the appropriate sanctioning would take over the Premier League in Winter 2025 pending the sanction decision and any appeals.

What is the appeal process?

Appeals have been discussed since Day 1 such is the expectation that City would “fight to the end.” Nevertheless, commentators have struggled to clearly explain what the process would actually involve.

To ascertain the appeal options, it is worth ruling out some of the often touted routes - there is no realistic route to the English appeal courts to appraise the case itself and there is no route at all to CAS. There are, however, some limited routes to the English courts to decide on matters relating to jurisdiction and process which City used, unsuccessfully, in 2020 and 2021.

By joining the Premier League, each club (and its directors) agrees to the following binding dispute resolution framework:

1. All disputes must go to arbitration – If a disagreement arises between the League and a club (or between clubs), it must be resolved through final and binding arbitration (not in court).

2. Arbitration happens in England and Wales – That’s the agreed location for the process.

3. English law will apply – The legal principles used to decide the case must be those of England.

4. No other dispute process allowed – Clubs cannot try to resolve their disputes using any other legal forum or system. In short, this matter can not be appealed to the Court for Arbitration of Sport under any circumstances.

The City case is a Section W Disciplinary ie under the same rule set as the previous Everton and Nottingham Forest cases.

Under the Premier League Rules (“PL Rules”), appeals of this kind are determined by an Appeal Board of three members, all independent and appointed by the Chair of the Judicial Panel. The Appeal Board Chair would likely be a former Justice of the Supreme Court. The parties would have the right to object to any member of an Appeal Board (Rule W.68). The Appeal Board would then issue directions, agreed by the parties, to enable the appeal to be determined as soon as possible.

Appeals are not re-trials or quick

The appeal can be on both liability (whether City broke the rules) and sanction (the punishment). Realistically, even a liability appeal hearing alone would not occur for 3-6 months and, of course, we could expect another wait for that appeal award.

The standard and operation of a Section W appeal was helpfully considered in some detail in the Nottingham Forest PSR appeal including with reference to the Everton 1 PSR appeal. It gives a strong steer as to the remit of such an appeal.

Rule W.74 states that unless the Appeal Board gives permission for new evidence (which is rare), “an appeal shall be by way of a review of the evidence adduced before the Commission.” Although any party to an appeal may apply for permission to adduce new evidence, it will only be allowed if it can be shown that the evidence was not available to the party and could not have been obtained by such party with reasonable diligence, at the time of the IC. In this case, this is highly unlikely.

This means the Appeal Board will not conduct a full retrial or start from scratch; instead, it reviews the material already presented to the original IC and its findings.

This “review” approach means the Appeal Board must give “considerable respect” to the IC’s findings, especially on matters of evaluative judgment. The Appeal Board should not overturn the IC’s decision just because it might have reached a different conclusion. Instead, intervention is only justified if the IC made an error of principle, reached a conclusion outside the bounds of reasonable disagreement, or was “wrong by reason of an identifiable flaw in the judge’s treatment of the question to be decided, such as a gap in logic, a lack of consistency, or a failure to take into account some material factor, which undermines the cogency of the conclusion” (see Lifestyle Equities CV v Amazon UK Services Ltd [2024] UKSC 8 at para 49 and Everton 1 Appeal, paras 70–74).

Review and deference

The default position in English law with appeals from regulatory bodies such as an IC is for an appeal to be by way of review in which a high degree of deference is given to the decision of the primary evaluator of the evidence.

To quote the Appeal Board in the Everton 1 Appeal:

“An Appeal Board cannot change the Commission’s decision just because the Board would have taken a different view on the facts... The Commission had two advantages over the Appeal Board, which generally require us to give deference to its findings and conclusion. First and most importantly, the Commission heard evidence, at some length from a number of witnesses, and therefore the deference given to findings of fact that turn on that evidence must be considerable... On the other hand, if the Commission made an error in its approach to a matter, or some other error of law, deference would play no part: that would be an error which, if material, this Board would be bound to correct.”

Clubs have sometimes argued that the PL Rules allow for a broader, almost de novo, reconsideration - in effect, that the Appeal Board is not bound by the IC’s findings and can reach its own conclusions. However, the prevailing interpretation is that unless the rules expressly provide for a rehearing (as the CAS rules do, but the PL Rules do not), the default is a review with deference to the original decision. The language of “review” in Rule W.74 strongly reinforces this narrower approach.

Section W grounds of appeal

Therefore, the Appeal Board will only interfere with the IC’s decision if there is:

1. An error of law or principle (contrast this with more restrictive Section X appeals described below);

2. Consideration by the IC of irrelevant factors;

3. Failure of the IC to consider relevant factors;

4. An irrational or perverse decision (outside the range of reasonable responses); or

5. Some procedural irregularity causing unfairness.

For example, in the Everton 1 appeal, the Appeal Board intervened because the IC made a finding of “lack of frankness” that was not part of the charges and failed to benchmark the sanction against relevant comparators - both were considered material legal errors.

If the IC’s decision is not tainted by a material error, the Appeal Board will be “very slow to interfere.” This margin of appreciation is intended to promote finality and certainty, minimising prolonged uncertainty for clubs, the league, and fans. The IC’s advantage - having heard all the evidence and witnesses firsthand over 12 long weeks - is a key reason for this deference.

What does this mean in practice?

In short, the IC’s factual findings will be sticky. If the IC finds, for instance, that Mr. X was an unreliable or not a credible witness, i.e. a liar, that finding will be difficult to overturn or overcome on appeal. The Appeal Board won't recall Mr. X for re-examination or re-evaluate every piece of evidence put to the witness. The parties will be stuck with those factual findings. Of course, this also works the other way. If Mr. X is considered credible by the IC, the Appeal Board would likely have no grounds to undermine his evidence at the later stage.

Where an appeal can succeed is if the IC demonstrably got the law wrong, or if they imposed a sanction that is "wholly disproportionate" to the breach. We saw shades of this in the Everton 1 case, where the Premier League's proposed sanction was effectively deemed too severe by the Appeal Board for the reasons detailed above. City's legal team, undoubtedly, would throw every argument imaginable at the Appeal Board regarding the sanction if they are found liable.

Is that the end of the road?

An Appeal Board may allow or dismiss the appeal, vary any penalty or order (except fixed penalties), vary or discharge compensation orders, order forfeiture/repayment of deposit, order costs, remit the matter back to the original body with directions, or make other appropriate orders. It has a wide discretion.

Subject to the provisions of Section X of the PL Rules, the decision of an Appeal Board is final.

Last chance saloon - Section X

Rule X.4 sets out the grounds for an arbitration appeal to a disciplinary case.

A decision of an IC or Appeal Board may only be reviewed through Section X arbitration if the applicant can establish that the decision:

1. Exceeded jurisdiction – The body reached a decision outside the scope of its lawful authority.

2. Involved fraud, malice, or bad faith – The decision was procured or influenced by dishonest or improper motives.

3. Was vitiated by serious procedural error – Procedural failures occurred that clearly and substantially prejudiced the applicant’s rights.

4. Reflected a perversion of the law – The decision was based on an interpretation of the law that was irrational or fundamentally wrong.

5. Was irrational on the facts – No reasonable IC or Appeal Board, properly applying its mind to the evidence, could have reached the same conclusion.

All of these are routes that highly unlikely to apply to the City case and even less likely to ultimately succeed.

The Premier League did try a Section X appeal vs Leicester

The fact that the Premier League itself recently pursued such an appeal in its case against Leicester was a surprise. That its case was dismissed, was not.

In the case vs Leicester, the PL’s principal case was advanced under Rule X.4.4 - that the Appeal Board’s decision was reached “as a result of a perverse interpretation of the law”. The PL’s alternative case was that the Appeal Board’s decision was “one which could not reasonably have been reached by any Commission or Appeal Board which had applied its mind properly to the facts of the case” but even the PL argued this only faintly.

Unsurprisingly, the judgment concluded that a perverse interpretation of the law connotes an error of law “so contrary to established principle as to have been the result of a serious want of reasoning or rationality.” The test is intended to ensure that it will only be in cases of egregious misinterpretation of the law that decisions of the Appeal Board will be reversed.

A Section X appeal is final. Almost.

And this brings us to Rule X.37, the apparent final word on the matter within the Premier League's framework.

It explicitly states: "Subject to the provisions of sections 67 to 71 of the Act, the [decision of a Section X appeal board] shall be final and binding on the parties and there shall be no right of appeal. There shall be no right of appeal on a point of law under section 69 of the Act."

This is a critical clause, designed to limit further challenges to disciplinary and other Premier League dispute processes. Those referenced sections of the Arbitration Act 1996 mean that this final throw of the dice is available only in extremely limited circumstances:

• Section 67 (Lack of jurisdiction): This allows a challenge if any of the tribunals (the IC, the Section W Appeal Board, the Section X Appeal Board) lacked the authority to make the award. Could City argue the Premier League didn't have jurisdiction over some of the alleged breaches? This would be extremely unlikely to succeed.

• Section 68 (Serious procedural irregularity causing injustice): This is the most common ground for challenging an arbitration award in the English High Court. It covers issues like unfair conduct of proceedings, failure to deal with all issues, or fraud. However, the bar for "serious procedural irregularity causing injustice" is exceptionally high. It's not enough that there was a procedural error; it must have caused substantial injustice to the challenging party. Given the exhaustive nature of the City case, with months of hearings and extensive legal representation, arguing such a fundamental flaw would be a monumental task.

• Section 70 (Procedural rules and time limits): This simply deals with the mechanics and deadlines for bringing such challenges.

• Section 71 (Jurisdictional objections by non-parties): This applies to situations where someone not directly a party to the arbitration is affected by the award and wants to challenge the tribunal's jurisdiction. Highly unlikely to be relevant for this case.

No further appeal on a point of law (Section 69 is excluded)

Crucially, Rule X.37 explicitly removes the right to appeal on a point of law under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act. This is significant. It means that even if City believes there to be an error in interpreting Premier League Rules or applying legal principles, they cannot appeal to the High Court on that point.

For City to successfully challenge a lost case beyond the internal Premier League appeal system, they would need to demonstrate a fundamental procedural injustice or a lack of jurisdiction that is extremely unlikely to be found by the English High Court. The threshold for such interventions is purposefully set extremely high to uphold the principle of finality in arbitration.

CAS? Not this time

It's also worth noting that there is no route to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). In 2008, West Ham filed an appeal from an FA arbitration decision to CAS. Sheffield United said that the pursuit of an appeal to CAS was a breach of the arbitration agreement between the two clubs and that CAS had no jurisdiction to entertain any such appeal. The High Court agreed with Sheffield United. You can read the full details of the West Ham v Sheffield United case in my deep dive here.

The full time whistle, eventually

The Premier League's legal framework, for better or worse, is designed to ensure that its internal decisions, once exhausted through its own appeal mechanisms, are indeed final.

And whilst it won’t be quick, given the high stakes all round, finality is now a precious commodity in the City 115 case.