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

[1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 38
[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)
TCCB as at August 3, has, I think, been proved.
Furthermore in my judgment as at August 3 there
was a clear threat of further direct interference by
the TCCB at its impending meeting of August 5,
when, it could reasonably have been assumed, it
would, unless restrained by the court, actually implement
its own proposal for a deferred ban at
county level affecting World Series Cricket players.(2)
Knowledge
The TCCB had acquired knowledge of the existence
of at least three of the relevant contracts as
early as May 12, 1977, after Mr. Insole, or Mr.
Carr, had seen Mr. Greig, Mr. Knott and Mr. Underwood.
By July 15, it knew of the existence of
many more such contracts. Its ignorance of their
precise terms does not alone suffice to show absence
of intent to procure a breach. In my judgment,
the requisite knowledge on the part of the
TCCB is proved.(3)
Intent
Mutatis mutandis, much the same comments and
conclusions relating to intent apply to the TCCB as
those which have been made concerning the ICC.
Mr. Insole, who is clearly a powerful and respected
figure at any meeting of the TCCB or of the ICC,
which he attends, made it plain in his evidence that,
in advocating deferred bans at Test and county
level coupled with an opportunity to players to
“withdraw from the brink,” he never at any time
contemplated that players under contract to World
Series Cricket might thereby be induced to break
such contracts or to act in any way in breach of the
law; the most he contemplated and hoped was that
the terms of the bans or proposed bans would give
players an opportunity to withdraw from their contracts,
if they found that they could lawfully do so.
I accept such evidence as an honest statement
of Mr. Insole's frame *344
of mind at the relevant times. I accept that
he and Mr. Carr, who also gave full evidence in the
proceedings, did not contemplate that the course
which they proposed that the ICC should adopt on
July 26 and that the TCCB should adopt on August
5 would involve the tort of inducement of breach of
contract or any infringement of the legal rights of
World Series Cricket. I have no reason to suppose
that any of the delegates present at the meeting of
the TCCB on July 15 were not acting in good faith.
They may well have been reassured by the terms of
counsel's opinion written for the TCCB on July 5,
copies of which were available to them. This opinion,
as has already been mentioned, contained important
caveats, but I suspect that their force was
inadequately appreciated. Mr. Insole pointed out in
evidence, and I accept, that a number of extracts
from the minutes and transcribed notes indicate a
concern on the part of persons present at the relevant
TCCB meetings to act lawfully and obtain legal
advice.
However that may be, honest misunderstanding of
the legal position and good faith as such, are once
again irrelevant. In my judgment the intention of
the TCCB as at August 3 can only be judged by
what it did and what it said, in particular on July
15.
Applying this objective test, I find as a fact that in
passing the resolutions which it did pass on July 15,
the TCCB intended to apply pressure or persuasion
to all players who had entered into contracts with
World Series Cricket and were otherwise eligible
for Test or county cricket to withdraw from such
contracts before October 1, whether or not they had
lawful rights to withdraw. I find also as a fact that
as at August 3, World Series Cricket had good
grounds for apprehending that the TCCB intended
to pass at its meeting of August 5, and subsequently
publicise, further resolutions which would be calculated
to apply further such pressure or persuasion.
In my judgment it is no answer for the TCCB to
submit that in truth it intended to apply such pressure
or persuasion only to those players, if any,
who might have lawful rights to withdraw from
their contracts with World Series Cricket. Nothing
© 2011 Thomson Reuters.