Has Tadgh behaved appropriately?

[connolly]

. The answer is in backloading contract payments to the completion of the contract and including penalty clauses for walking out on the contract. A bit like a construction industry contract.

Yeah, where the subbies get robbed, the workers get maimed and robbed, and its business as usual for the bosses and their insurance companies.

Mate Im a socialist except where it comes to footballers, jockeys, horse trainers and player agents.

[ROK Lobster]

It was was Mason's view in Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation, that employee/employer relationships are one of the accepted fiduciary relationships. This principlewas accepted by the majority in Concut v Worrall (2000) Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell [2000] HCA 64; 75 ALJR 312 (14 December 2000). That case didn't take it much further as the court determined the issue before it on a principle of contract formation. So what remedies are potentially available against an employee football who breaches his contract, attempts to terminate it and threatens to simply walk out and "retire". Obviously damages ( the cost of an expensive medical operation and rehab would be an obvious place to start to make a statement regarding the club's determination to see contracts honoured), punitive damages in equity against inducers of the breach of contract (we've been there and done that) and as a long shot account of profits. The principle case for account of profits remedy is Attorney General v Blake House of Lords - Her Majesty's Attorney General v. Blake and Another. It is unclear whether a plaintiff can recover account of profis based on restitutory principles in Australia. Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Australian Rugby Union Ltd (2001) 110 FCR 157 (3 August 2001) suggests not but in Dalecast Pty Ltd v Guardian International Pty Ltd WASC 199 (1 August 2001) Dalecoast Pty Ltd v Guardian International Pty Ltd & Ors [2003] WASCA 142 (27 June 2003) a Western Australian Supreme Court judge accepted the Blake principle although rejected its application of the facts of the case. So could a club successfully claim account of profits against Kennelly? Highly unlikely because the circumstances probably aren't exceptional enough (Blake was a traitor who breached a confidentiality agreement with the seceret service while Kennely was a traitor who breached his contract with a footy club) and unemployment is growing at a rate of knots in Ireland so its doubtful Kennelly will be making much. The answer is in backloading contract payments to the completion of the contract and including penalty clauses for walking out on the contract. A bit like a construction industry contract. This effort was done over brekky. I'll email the rest to you if you are interested.

Thanks. I quickly read Concut. I would take from that that the club may now have a right to terminate Kennelly's contract for breach of his duty to act in the club's interests - though that may require some clever argument to prove. He hasn't stolen anything, made false representations for his own benefit etc. All he has done is quit.

You show all the enthusiasm (and lack of commercial acumen) of the keenest graduates and the better student paralegals. Keep it up and you might land yourself a decent entry level position where you can learn how to play (and how to read the case law and not rely on the secondary stuff so much).

I think what you say about changing the structure of players' employment contracts makes some sense. Would be interesting to see what the players association made of a fundamental change in the way players were paid.

[AnnieH]

Connelly 1
ROKL 0


(But I'm not keeping score or anything!)

[ROK Lobster]

He's wrong, again. Never mind, I know it's hard.

[giant]

Actually his contract said he owed us one more season. But its only a legally binding promise. Great bloke Tadhg

Are we aware that Tadhg unilaterally terminated the contract as it certainly appeared to be mutually consented? In which case neither party owes anybody anything.

More to the point, my comment had nothing to do with contractual obligations and everything to do with a player who's given his all. It's been a joy to have him at the club.

[CureTheSane]

The train of thought here seems to be whether or not the club should be allowed to act without consulting it's members and supporters.

[goswannie14]

The train of thought here seems to be whether or not the club should be allowed to act without consulting it's members and supporters.

...on every decision to do with the team.

[connolly]

The train of thought here seems to be whether or not the club should be allowed to act without consulting it's members and supporters.

Or at least a lawyer who isnt @@@@ scared about filing an application in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

[connolly]

Are we aware that Tadhg unilaterally terminated the contract as it certainly appeared to be mutually consented? In which case neither party owes anybody anything.

More to the point, my comment had nothing to do with contractual obligations and everything to do with a player who's given his all. It's been a joy to have him at the club.

He breached his contract and the club elected to accept the termination. No doubt about the second point. Exhilarating player who got us moving. Pity about his performance at the end off the paddock though.

[ROK Lobster]

Or at least a lawyer who isnt @@@@ scared about filing an application in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Or do you mean a lawyer who is not concerned with trivialities such as their professional responsibility not to litigate without a genuine prospect of success. We're not journalists you know.

[timthefish]

Or do you mean a lawyer who is not concerned with trivialities such as their professional responsibility not to litigate without a genuine prospect of success. We're not journalists you know.

nicely put. not to mention the pointlessness of winning if it were possible.

[AnnieH]

nicely put. not to mention the pointlessness of winning if it were possible.

It's the vibe.