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

[1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 56
[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)
and all the resolutions of the ICC respectively referred
to and set out in the press statement of the
ICC issued on July 26, 1977, are ultra vires and
void as being in unreasonable restraint of trade; and
(ii) a declaration that the new or proposed new
rule 1 (e) and (f) of the rules of
the TCCB governing the qualification and registration
of cricketers in Test and *364
competitive and county cricket and the
new or proposed new
rule 2 (c) (i)
of the said rules are or would be ultra vires
and void as being in unreasonable restraint of trade.
Subject as aforesaid, I propose to grant to
the plaintiff company in the second action. (i) a declaration
that all the changes of the rules of the ICC
and all the resolutions of the ICC respectively referred
to and set out in the press statement of the
ICC issued on July 26, 1977, are (a) ultra vires and
void as being in unreasonable restraint of trade and
(b) an unlawful inducement to the cricketers referred
to in the statement of claim in this action to
break their contracts with the plaintiff company referred
to in the said statement of claim; (ii) a declaration
that the new or proposed new
rule 1 (e) and (f) of the rules of
the TCCB governing the qualification and registration
of cricketers in Test and competitive and
county cricket and the new or proposed new
rule 2 (e) (i) of the said rules are
or would be (a) ultra vires and void as being in unreasonable
restraint of trade; and (b) an unlawful
inducement to the said cricketers to break their said
contracts.
I also propose to grant the plaintiffs in each action
liberty to apply for an injunction.
I make these observations in conclusion. Mr.
Kempster, in his opening speech for the defendants,
generously but correctly, acknowledged five positive
beneficial effects which, on the evidence, have
already been produced by the emergence of World
Series Cricket as a promoter of cricket. First, as he
said, it has offered the promise of much greater rewards
for star cricketers. Indeed, it has gone further
than this; it has offered secure, regular remunerative
employment in cricket to more than 50 cricketers,
in most cases for three English winter seasons,
at a time when most of them would otherwise
have had no guarantee of regular employment in the
game. Secondly, it has already stimulated new
sponsors for traditional cricket. Thirdly, it has
brought back to the game in Australia several talented
players. Fourthly, it, or the group of companies
of which it forms part, has initiated a useful coaching
scheme for young players in New South Wales.
Fifthly, it has increased public interest in the game.
For all these acknowledged benefits, the defendants
have held the strong opinion that the effective
monopoly of the ICC in the promotion of first class
cricket at international level has been good for the
game and that the emergence of World Series
Cricket into the promotion field is bad for it.
However, whether or not this opinion is correct has
not been the question for this court. The question
for decision has been whether the particular steps
which the ICC and the TCCB took to combat what
they regarded as the threat from World Series
Cricket were legally justified. This long investigation
has satisfied me that the positive demonstrable
benefits that might be achieved by introducing the
ICC and TCCB bans and applying them to players
who had already committed themselves to contracts
with World Series Cricket were at best somewhat
speculative. On the other hand there were, as has
been mentioned, a number of demonstrable disadvantages
if the bans were to be applied in this way.
They would preclude the players concerned from
entry into important fields of professional livelihood.
They would subject them to the hardships
and injustice of essentially retrospective legislation.
They would deprive the public of any opportunity
of seeing the players concerned playing in conventional
cricket, either at Test or at English county
level, for at least a number of years.*365
By so depriving the public, they would carry with
them an appreciable risk of diminishing both public
© 2011 Thomson Reuters.