MacDonald v Federation International De Football Association & Ors [1998] ScotCS 85 (2 December 1998)

MacDonald v Federation International De Football Association & Ors [1998] ScotCS 85 (2 December 1998)

There was no relevant proximity or duty of care owed by FIFA or SFA to the pursuer as a spectator for the economic or non-economic losses claimed. The rules did not confer enforceable rights on spectators, and it would not be fair, just or reasonable to impose such a duty. The claim was not relevantly averred and must be dismissed.

Citation
[1998] ScotCS 85
Parties
Pursuer: John MacDonald; First Defender: Federation International De Football Association (FIFA); Second Defender: Scottish Football Association (SFA)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 December 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Delict (tort) Action / Opinion on Relevancy and Jurisdiction, Dismissal at First Instance
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Proximity, Economic Loss, Jurisdiction, Joint and Several Liability, Organiser Liability, Spectator Rights
Tort/delict Sports Law Private International Law Duty of Care Proximity Economic Loss Jurisdiction Joint and Several Liability +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John MacDonald

Pursuer

Federation International De Football Association (FIFA)

First Defender

Scottish Football Association (SFA)

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Delict (tort) Action / Opinion on Relevancy and Jurisdiction, Dismissal at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether FIFA or SFA owed a duty of care in delict to football spectators for losses arising from a match not being played as scheduled
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient proximity between organisers and spectators to establish liability
  3. 3 Whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty

Ratio Decidendi

There was no relevant proximity or duty of care owed by FIFA or SFA to the pursuer as a spectator for the economic or non-economic losses claimed. The rules did not confer enforceable rights on spectators, and it would not be fair, just or reasonable to impose such a duty. The claim was not relevantly averred and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Sustain second plea for first defenders (FIFA) and first plea for second defenders (SFA)
  • Repel first plea for first defenders (FIFA)