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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

[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.
[1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 57 [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) enthusiasm for conventional cricket and the receipts to be derived from it. Furthermore, the defendants by imposing the hans, in the form which they took and with the intentions which prompted them, acted without adequate regard to the fact that World Series Cricket had contractual rights with the players concerned, which were entitled to the protection of the law. The defendants acted in good faith and in what they considered to be the best interests of cricket. That, however, is not enough to justify in law the course which they have taken. In the result, I find for the plaintiffs in both actions, with the consequences which have been stated.Declarations accordingly. Plaintiffs' costs save WSC costs connected with material relative to special damage. 1. Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, s. 14 : see post, p. 313A. S. 28 (2) : see post, p. 357A–C. END OF DOCUMENT © 2011 Thomson Reuters.
Page 1 and 2:
[1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 1 [1978] 1
Page 3 and 4:
[1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 3 [1978] 1
Page 5 and 6: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 5 [1978] 1
Page 7 and 8: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 7 [1978] 1
Page 9 and 10: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 9 [1978] 1
Page 11 and 12: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 11 [1978]
Page 13 and 14: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 13 [1978]
Page 15 and 16: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 15 [1978]
Page 17 and 18: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 17 [1978]
Page 19 and 20: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 19 [1978]
Page 21 and 22: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 21 [1978]
Page 23 and 24: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 23 [1978]
Page 25 and 26: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 25 [1978]
Page 27 and 28: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 27 [1978]
Page 29 and 30: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 29 [1978]
Page 31 and 32: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 31 [1978]
Page 33 and 34: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 33 [1978]
Page 35 and 36: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 35 [1978]
Page 37 and 38: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 37 [1978]
Page 39 and 40: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 39 [1978]
Page 41 and 42: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 41 [1978]
Page 43 and 44: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 43 [1978]
Page 45 and 46: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 45 [1978]
Page 47 and 48: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 47 [1978]
Page 49 and 50: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 49 [1978]
Page 51 and 52: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 51 [1978]
Page 53 and 54: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 53 [1978]
Page 55: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 55 [1978]
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?