Cunu­pia FC's lawyer Pe­ter Tay­lor has stat­ed that he did not serve his client's short-lived law­suit against T&T Foot­ball As­so­ci­a­tion (TTFA) Pres­i­dent William Wal­lace and his re­man­ing ex­ec­u­tive mem­bers via What­sapp.

Tay­lor reached out to Guardian Me­dia Sports yes­ter­day as he claimed that Wal­lace's lawyers had in­cor­rect­ly al­leged that they were im­prop­er­ly served via the pop­u­lar mes­sag­ing sys­tem.

Tay­lor not­ed that the filed pro­ceed­ings, which have since been with­drawn, were served via email, as re­quired un­der the Civ­il Pro­ceed­ings Rules 1998. Guardian Me­dia Sports has seen the email sent by Tay­lor to Wal­lace, Tay­lor and Sam dat­ed Oc­to­ber 8, 2020.

In the orig­i­nal court fil­ings, the club was chal­leng­ing Wal­lace and his team's de­ci­sion not to with­draw the case, which they even­tu­al­ly won.

Tay­lor said: "The De­fen­dants' ac­tions were gross­ly neg­li­gent, high­ly reck­less, un­eth­i­cal and ir­re­spon­si­ble and with­out due re­gard to the statu­to­ry un­der­pin­ning which binds the ac­tions of the As­so­ci­a­tion since they knew or ought to have known that fail­ure to with­draw the ac­tion in the High Court would re­sult in the sus­pen­sion of T&T and all the at­ten­dant ad­verse con­se­quences flow­ing there­from."

The club claimed that Wal­lace and his team went against the wish­es of the ma­jor­i­ty of its mem­ber as­so­ci­a­tions, who vot­ed to with­draw the case, be­fore FI­FA an­nounced the as­so­ci­a­tion's sus­pen­sion, last month.

"The De­fen­dants' de­ci­sion not to obey the ma­jor­i­ty vote of its mem­ber­ship to with­draw­ing the High Court ac­tion is in­con­sis­tent with good ad­min­is­tra­tion," Tay­lor stat­ed.

It stat­ed that through the sus­pen­sion it would miss out on par­tic­i­pat­ing in re­gion­al club tour­na­ments and re­ceiv­ing cor­re­spond­ing fund­ing, to­talling $4.5 mil­lion.

Re­spond­ing to the law­suit, Wal­lace's lawyer Matthew Gayle made the al­le­ga­tion on the ser­vice of the law­suit and sug­gest­ed that it be with­drawn as it was doomed to fail.

Gayle ques­tioned why Tay­lor claimed that Wal­lace and his team in their per­son­al ca­pac­i­ty breached an al­leged con­trac­tu­al agree­ment with the club, when no such con­tract ex­ist­ed.

He al­so queried the club's claim that is spon­sor­ship and fund­ing is­sues were caused by Wal­lace and his team's case be­fore Gob­in.

"There is no nexus be­tween your client's pur­port­ed po­ten­tial and/or the­o­ret­i­cal fu­ture loss­es, which the claim com­pounds by right­ly and prop­er­ly recog­nis­ing my client as the "du­ly elect­ed Pres­i­dent".

Gayle sug­gest­ed that the $4.5 mil­lion in los­es in Gov­ern­ment and pri­vate fund­ing was not guar­an­teed as it was de­pen­dent on the team's qual­i­fi­ca­tions for re­gion­al club tour­na­ments.

"In any event, no cau­sa­tion is pred­i­cat­ed and the pur­port­ed po­ten­tial/an­tic­i­pat­ed loss­es are pred­i­cat­ed on the oc­cur­rence of sev­er­al events which ate yet to take place or may nev­er do," he said, as he sug­gest­ed that the case was based on spec­u­la­tion.

The case was even­tu­al­ly with­drawn on Tues­day. Gayle has since re­quest­ed that the club apol­o­gise and pay his client's le­gal costs in­curred in re­spond­ing to the case.