*302 Greig and Others v Insole and Others 1977 G. No. 22461977 J ...

[1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 25
[1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 [1978] 3 All E.R. 449 (1978) 122 S.J. 162 [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 [1978] 3 All E.R. 449 (1978)
122 S.J. 162
(Cite as: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302)
be registered for more than one county in one season
without the approval of the board.(c)Subject to
the overriding discretion of the board, no county
shall be entitled to play in any competitive county
cricket match more than two cricketers who are not
qualified to play for England.”
At the end of Appendix B to the
rules of the TCCB, there followed and still follow
some notes to the rules governing qualification and
registration contained earlier in the appendix.
[His Lordship then dealt with leading counsel's
opinion dated July 5 to the TCCB in respect of its
proposed change of rules, the subsequent meeting
of the chairman's advisory committee and its report.
He continued:]
X
The resolutions introducing bans
Meeting of the TCCB: July 15, 1977
On July 15, 1977, a special meeting of the
TCCB was held. This is of importance for the purpose
of these proceedings because, as the formal
minutes show, the TCCB there reached a firm decision
in principle to introduce a ban at county
level, subject only to the Cricket Council supporting
its proposals and the ICC taking the expected
decision in regard to a Test Match ban. Such support
was subsequently given by the Cricket Council
and the ICC took the expected decision. In due
course, therefore, when the TCCB on August 5
came to pass formal resolutions implementing the
proposals, it was merely carrying out a policy on
which a firm decision had already been reached in
principle on July 15. In view of the claim that the
proposal for a ban constituted an inducement to
*329 breach of contract, it therefore
becomes important to examine, so far as the evidence
reveals this, the intentions of the meeting of
July 15, when it decided in principle on the desirability
of a county ban.
[His Lordship considered that evidence in
detail and the meetings on July 19 of the Cricket
Council and on July 26 of the ICC at which latter
meeting the West Indies delegate expressed strong
reservations as to the retroactive nature of the proposed
ICC ban. He continued:] The four specific
decisions reached by the ICC at this important
meeting of July 26 were, after an introductory explanation,
recorded in the press statement issued by
it later that day:
“In order to give effect to these views, the ICC
passed unanimously: —
1.A change in the ICC rules relating to qualification
for Test Matches, as follows ‘Notwithstanding anything
hereinbefore contained no player who after
October 1, 1977, has played or has made himself
available to play in a match previously disapproved
by the conference shall thereafter be eligible to play
in any Test Match without the express consent of
the conference to be given only on the application
of the governing body for cricket of the country for
which, but for this subrule, the player would be eligible
to play.’
“2.Pursuant to this new subrule (f), the conference
then passed unanimously a resolution in the following
terms disapproving certain matches ‘It is hereby
resolved for the purposes of Appendix I (f) that any
match arranged or to be arranged by J.P. Sports
(Pty.) Ltd., Mr. Kerry Packer, Mr. Richie Benaud
or associated companies or persons to take place in
Australia or elsewhere between October 1, 1977,
and March 31, 1979, is disapproved.’
“3.In addition the conference passed a guidance
resolution in the following terms ‘For future guidance
the conference records and minutes that
matches are liable to be disapproved if so arranged,
whether by reference to date or otherwise, as to
have the probable result that invitations to play in
such matches will conflict with invitations which
have been or may be received to play in first class
matches subject to the jurisdiction of the governing
bodies of foundation and full members of the conference.’
© 2011 Thomson Reuters.