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

[1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 33
[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)
of breach of contract or any infringement of the
legal rights of World Series Cricket. I am satisfied
that they were acting in good faith and, on the
available evidence, have no reason to suppose that
the other delegates present at the ICC meeting of
July 26 were not acting similarly.
As has already been pointed out, however,
good faith as such in the present context has no legal
relevance. There were some 26 delegates of the
various Test-playing countries present when the relevant
ICC resolutions of July 26, 1977, were
passed, the majority of whom have not given evidence
and many of whom are not reported as having
said anything relevant for the present purposes at
the meeting. In these circumstances any attempt
subjectively to assess the innermost minds of all the
representatives present would not only in my judgment
be legally incorrect, but would be impossible
to carry out. In my judgment, the intentions of the
ICC as at July 26, 1977, can only be judged by
what it did that day and subsequently said to the
outside world in its press statement of that day. As
Lord Halsbury L.C. said in
South Wales Miners' Federation v.
Glamorgan Coal Co. Ltd.
[1905] A.C. 239 , 244, it is a
principle of the law that “people are presumed to
intend the reasonable consequences of their acts.”
The same principle must in my judgment apply a
fortiori when judging the intentions of a large unincorporated
association.
Applying this objective test, how then are the intentions
of the ICC as at July 26 in imposing and announcing
to the world the Test Match ban, but deferring
the date of its operation until October 1 to
be assessed? In my judgment there can be only one
answer to the question. This is that the ICC, by imposing
and announcing the ban in this form, intended
to apply pressure or persuasion to all players
who had entered into contracts with World Series
Cricket and were otherwise eligible for Test cricket
to withdraw from their contracts by October 1. In
my judgment it is no answer for the ICC to plead
that in truth it only intended to apply pressure or
persuasion to those players, if any, who might have
lawful rights of withdrawal. Nothing in the terms of
its resolutions or of its press statement or of any
other communication made by it to players gave
any indication of such limitations on its intentions
or drew any distinction between those players who
might be fully legally committed to World Series
Cricket and those who might have lawful rights of
withdrawal. The pressure was, on the face of things,
being applied by it as much to players who had
fully binding contracts, as to those who had not;
and this, I think, is how the ICC's intentions must
be judged.
On this basis, I find as a fact that the ICC, in
passing its resolution of July 26 intended to apply
pressure or persuasion to all players, who had contracts
with World Series Cricket and were otherwise
eligible for Test cricket, to withdraw from
such contracts, whether or not they had lawful
rights to withdraw. In the case of a number of persons
present at the meeting, such intention was motivated
by a belief that most of the players' contracts
probably were not legally enforceable. The
requisite intention to constitute the tort being
present, however, the belief which motivated it, and
the good faith of the persons who held such belief,
in my judgment have no legal relevance.
I should, perhaps, add that I appear to be
by no means alone in interpreting the ICC's intentions
in this manner. A number of the persons who
spoke at the ICC meeting of July 26 spoke in terms
which showed that they contemplated that the proposed
ban might have the general effect of causing
a number of players to withdraw from their contracts
with World Series Cricket, without drawing
any distinction between those players who might
have a right so to withdraw and those who might
not. On August 22 the Board of Control for Cricket
in Pakistan wrote to a Pakistan player, Mr. Iqbal,
saying, inter alia:
“The BCCP [the board of control] has also decided
to abide by the decision taken alt the last ICC meet-
© 2011 Thomson Reuters.