WEST HAM demand an arbitration hearing or will seek hight court injunction.

Details have emerged in the papers this morning of the letter to the FA and the grounds West Ham are allegedly demanding an arbitration appeal panel is convened under rule K of the handbook.

West Ham could demand the FA bring arbitration proceedings under rule K of their rules. Such an arbitration would be limited to a challenge to the validity of the decision on the grounds of ultra vires ( Latin: ‘beyond powers’) including error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness. An arbitration would probably take place behind closed doors before a new FA three-person tribunal. The process could take weeks rather than days, and it is likely that the 3 match ban would be suspended pending the result of the arbitration if permitted by the FA.

West Ham’s first argument appears to be it is against normal justice that Andy Carroll was not allowed to appear in person in front of the panel.

The second and main claim is said to be around the FA’s claim there has to be an ‘obvious error’ in Howard Webb’s decision for the red card to be overturned. West Ham claim this statement is fundamentally flawed as it is not in the FA or Premier League rule book. The letter is believed to have been written by Lord David Pannick QC on behalf of the club says the structure of the FA appeal process is legally flawed. If the FA refuse an arbitration hearing it is claimed West ham will seek a high court injunction to allow Andy Carroll to play on Saturday. There are claims it could bring the whole current appeal panel system down if successful.

West ham could also attempt to bring judicial review proceedings in the high court, but our chances of getting this type of action are very unlikely. In a previous challenge to the setting up of the Premier League in 1992, the high court decided that the FA was not subject to judicial review. Another option is the Court of Arbitration for Sport.