T&T Foot­ball As­so­ci­a­tion (TTFA) pres­i­dent William Wal­lace has re­quest­ed that that TT Pro League team Cunu­pia FC apol­o­gise and pay his le­gal costs for re­spond­ing to its short-lived law­suit over his team's pur­suit of their law­suit against FI­FA.

Wal­lace's lawyer Matthew Gayle made the de­mands in a let­ter is­sued to Cunu­pia FC head coach Michael Du Four on Wednes­day.

In the let­ter ob­tained by Guardian Me­dia Sports on Wednes­day, Gayle re­it­er­at­ed his po­si­tion that the case was mis­con­ceived and sug­gest­ed that it was filed by the club to max­imise on pub­lic­i­ty caused by the TTFA's sub­stan­tive case against FI­FA.

Gayle's let­ter came hours af­ter Jus­tice Car­ol Gob­in ruled in Wal­lace's favour and ruled that FI­FA act­ed il­le­gal­ly in re­plac­ing him and his team with a nor­mal­i­sa­tion com­mit­tee led by busi­ness Robert Hadad in March.

"It ought to be abun­dant­ly clear to you that claim CV2020-03229 in short, is the very de­f­i­n­i­tion of a vex­a­tious and/or abu­sive claim," Gayle said.

He gave Du Four and the club un­til No­vem­ber 13 to re­spond and stat­ed that he would file a law­suit seek­ing same if the re­quests are not fa­cil­i­tat­ed.

In the orig­i­nal court fil­ings, the club's lawyer Pe­ter 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 from 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 vote to with­draw the case, by with­draw­ing their with­draw­al ap­pli­ca­tion, which was filed past the dead­line, af­ter FI­FA an­nounced the sus­pen­sion.

"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, Gayle 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.