Mr Justice Floyd has presided over a number of high-profile court cases in his time. But it is unlikely that a patent dispute over the copyright to Henry Hoover, a royalties decision in favour of the session violinist who played on the Bluebells hit Young at Heart or a spat over the name of a Stella McCartney perfume will generate nearly as much heat as that seventh on the cause list for court 16 tomorrow.
The nub of the argument remains the same as when the battle for control of Liverpool exploded into the open last week. Floyd, a contract and intellectual property law specialist, will be called on to decide whether Tom Hicks and George Gillett, Liverpool's co-owners, broke a contractual agreement with Royal Bank of Scotland when they last week attempted sack the club's commercial director, Ian Ayre, and chief executive, Christian Purslow.
As Martin Broughton, the independent director brought in by RBS as part of its refinancing agreement with Hicks and Gillett in April, has repeatedly argued in countless interviews since, he believes that RBS had a binding agreement with Hicks and Gillett that gave him sole reponsibility over the board and prevented them interfering in the sale process.
Neil Matthews, a corporate partner with Eversheds, said it was "unusual" to have such detailed undertakings written into a refinancing agreement. "The undertakings given to the board are very unusual," he said. "The introduction of an independent chairman is not unusual, but it would be rare for shareholders to forego their ability to sack a board."
It seems clear that Broughton must be sure of his ground. Much will depend on the wording of the clauses and the judge's interpretation of the competing aspects of company and contract law. "Company law is very clear in that it does give shareholders the power to remove directors. But the question is then whether it puts them in breach of contract," said Matthews.
Today's case is being brought by RBS, with the club's independent chairman and directors also expected to seek a declamatory judgment in a separate parallel process that they hope will confirm they have the right to sell the club. The bank is bringing the case because the signed legal undertakings were with RBS rather than the club.
As such, the case will boil down to whether the disputed agreements exist and are legally binding. Further legal argument is expected to follow over whether, under company law, Hicks and Gillett did have the right to dissolve and reconstitute the board and whether that action can be subsequently undone.
"The essential point to the case will be the wording of the agreements relied upon by the parties and the bank in particular," said Richard Curtin, special counsel at Faegre & Benson LLP. "I will be surprised if RBS got their paperwork wrong. I would also comment that they are likely to have explored every possibility in preparation for the dispute at court and whatever ramifications could follow.
"Mr Justice Floyd will not be swayed by any emotion and he will deal with the case as you would expect of a high court judge. It is not entirely certain that the case will ultimately be heard by him as it could be passed to another judge in the Chancery Division."
That is a lawyer's way of saying that this could run and run beyond Sunday's Merseyside derby. RBS insiders indicated yesterday that should the case, and any likely appeal, go beyond the 15 October deadline when their £237m financing agreement expires it would be highly unlikely to force the club into administration.
An already murky picture was further obscured last night with the re-emergence on the scene of the rival bidder that the club referred to last week, named for the first time as the Singapore billionaire Peter Lim.
The presence of another bidder had already riled New England Sports Ventures and its board became further unsettled over the weekend by suggestions that the club could go into administration and be hit with a nine-point penalty.
But like Broughton, the rest of the board, the now hated shareholders, the hedge fund company in the US that is believed to have control of Gillett's stake in the holding company and hundreds of thousands of Liverpool fans, its fate now rests in the hands of Justice Floyd.
