If you ever have the misfortune of being slung out of your club then jumping the gun and going straight to court ( to seek a declaration that the decision should be aside as null and void ) may be a very big and costly mistake.
The following case illustrates this point all too clearly :
Lovell v Pembrokeshire County Cricket Club
Reference [2003] ISLR, SLR -39
Court Haverfordwest County Court
Court Haverfordwest County Court
Judge Neuberger J
Date of Judgment 1 May 2002
Summary
Sports law – Amateur sport – Rules as a contract
– Incorporation of terms – Breach of natural justice – Exhaustion of domestic
procedures – Declaratory relief
Facts
Mr Lovell (‘L’) was a cricketer playing for a
club affiliated to Pembrokeshire County Cricket Club (‘D’) in the Pembrokeshire
County Cricket League. During a match in August 2001, L claims that he was
verbally abused. At one point, when L was at the crease, he claimed that a
rival player threw the ball at the stumps when the ball was plainly dead. This
led to heated arguments at the time and subsequent formal complaints, lodged
with the League, that L had sworn at rival players and the umpire and had
manhandled a rival player. L was charged with misconduct. At the hearing L and
each of the witnesses were only permitted to attend while they were giving
evidence. Only the members of the Disciplinary Committee were permitted to ask
questions. L was found guilty and debarred from playing for four months
(including two months suspended). L did not pursue an appeal after being told
that the same procedure would be used. He
sought a declaration that the decision was null and void.
Issue
(1) Did L have a right
in contract (or on some other private law basis) to enforce D’s disciplinary
procedures against D?
(2) If there was a contract, were its terms as regards disciplinary procedures breached? (3) If L was successful so far, should he be refused declaratory relief? (4) Should L be refused relief due to his failure to exhaust the appeal procedures?
(2) If there was a contract, were its terms as regards disciplinary procedures breached? (3) If L was successful so far, should he be refused declaratory relief? (4) Should L be refused relief due to his failure to exhaust the appeal procedures?
Held
Dismissing the action: (1) D’s disciplinary procedures were contractually enforceable. It is
undesirable to interfere in amateur sport, but where a league has detailed
rules, with teeth, including disciplinary procedures, and is organised under
the auspices of a rule-making body
(such as D) then the rules will be legally enforceable, although the Court
should be careful before granting any relief. (2) D was in breach of L’s rights. The rules provided that a player charged has a right to attend the hearing,
entailing a right to attend the whole hearing. D also presented L with evidence
against him on the door of the court, and denied him the right to make
submissions in mitigation. (3) But for the issues relating to appeal, L
would have been granted the relief sought. (4) It would be inappropriate to grant
relief given L’s failure to exhaust the
appeal procedures, and the fact that an order for a re-hearing would place
L in a worse situation than the appeal offered by D.
Comment
The Court expressed a
reluctance to “go poking its nose into amateur cricket”, but given the detail
of the rules, and the sanctions they contained, held that these rules were
legally enforceable. From an observer’s point of view it is difficult to ascertain what
Mr Lovell thought he would gain from these proceedings: during negotiations the
Defendant had offered him an appeal
heard by a panel with a majority of independent members and an independent
chair, meaning that, as the Judge observed, what they were offering was better
than the re-hearing that the Court could offer him.
Clearly , the club committee were guilty of making procedural mistakes , which suggested that the disciplinary process was possibly flawed , and that Lovell may have been wrongfully suspended. Certainly he had good grounds to challenge the decision, but unfortunately for Lovell the committee as required by the club's Constitution did offer him a right of appeal to an independent and impartial body. This offer he chose to ignore. Not surprisingly the judge viewed his failure to accept this option as a major oversight on Lovell's part.
The courts see themselves as a final option , a last resort , when all other avenues to resolve the dispute in a fair and proper way have been explored and exhausted. Quite rightly , courts do not wish to interfere with the affairs of clubs and societies . Court time is extremely valuable and too precious to waste on matters , which often come down to personal feuds and vendettas. Nevertheless , if a real injustice has taken place despite the best efforts of both parties to settle the dispute out of court , then judges may well feel obliged to make a ruling.
And so the moral of this case can be summed up as follows : woe betide the party who comes to court having flatly refused to consider a sensible and available option , which could (and should have ) resolved the dispute in a quick , fair , expedient and cost effective way.
The courts see themselves as a final option , a last resort , when all other avenues to resolve the dispute in a fair and proper way have been explored and exhausted. Quite rightly , courts do not wish to interfere with the affairs of clubs and societies . Court time is extremely valuable and too precious to waste on matters , which often come down to personal feuds and vendettas. Nevertheless , if a real injustice has taken place despite the best efforts of both parties to settle the dispute out of court , then judges may well feel obliged to make a ruling.
And so the moral of this case can be summed up as follows : woe betide the party who comes to court having flatly refused to consider a sensible and available option , which could (and should have ) resolved the dispute in a quick , fair , expedient and cost effective way.
No comments:
Post a Comment