Managing Risk & Law in Sports - Case Analysis

This case analysis covers the Skelton v Australian Rugby Union Limited & Anor (2002) QSC 193 (11 June 2002) case and its implications on contract law in Australia.

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe
rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyu
iopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe
rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyu
iopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe
rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopa
Skelton v Australian rugby Union Limited & Anor (2002)QSC 193(11
June 2002)
Case Analysis

Running Head: Managing Risk &Law in Sports
Contract law is covered under common law in Australia. Every contract that is created in
Australia is covered by this law. This law helps in clearly labeling the rights and duties of
individuals getting into a contract. It also helps in clarifying who and by what extent; the parties
are liable, in case the terms of the contract are not complied with (Carter, 2013) One of such
cases where these provisions were used to bring clarity to the matter is Skelton v Australian
Rugby Union Limited & Anor (2002) QSC 193. This discussion is focused on highlighting the
contract law aspects of the quoted case.
Skelton v Australian Rugby Union Limited & Anor (2002) QSC 193
This case deals with the provision relating to breach of contract and restraint of trade as
contained in contract law. In this case applicant was dismissed from playing layman rugby union
due to suspension. The question was whether the ban was in denial of principles of natural
justice. In this case the court applied the principle laid down in Cameron v Hogan (1934) HCA
24;(1934)51 CLR 358.
Issues:
The main issue in this case was that the applicant was suspended from playing rugby on
account of misconduct with the touch judge and assaulting other players. The applicant before
signing the agreement with the new club did not mention about the same and registered
himself. Whereas there was a clause in his agreement stated "I warrant that I have fully
disclosed any suspension I may be serving imposed on me by any sporting body". Hence there
was a breach of contract on the part of applicant (Clark, Griggs, Cho, & Hoyle, 2013). The
applicant gave three main reasons to support his submission that his suspension is invalid are:
(A) the directive of suspension is unreasonable restraint of trade
(B) the suspension is invalid
(C) principles of natural justice was not followed
The applicant gave the reference of two cases namely Buckley & Ors. v Tutty (1971) HCA;71;
(1971)125 CLR 353 and Hall v Victorian Football League (1982)VicRp 6;(1982)VR 64. In these
1

Running Head: Managing Risk &Law in Sports
cases the court held that there is no restraint on trade and the directive passed to play the
match is valid.
Another issue raised by the applicant was that he was prohibited on personal disqualification
to play rugby. The main purpose of the directive is not to prohibit the movement of players or
to restrict the number of employers for footballers but to maintain the dignity and true spirit of
sports, to protect the judges from violence and to prevent violence or misbehavior by players
on the ground.
Whereas the respondents claimed that the applicant presented after a considerable time
hence delay disentitles him to relief.
Rule
The following case study affects mainly two laws that is; provisions relating to breach of
contract, restrain in trade as contained in common law principles in Australia and Australian
Rugby Union Code of Conduct By-laws (Care & Corrin, 2001).
As per the contract law (covered under common law in Australia) breach of contract means If
either party to the contract does not comply with the provisions of agreement which was
signed by them or does any act by which repudiates the contract or does not fulfill the
conditions as mentioned in contract (Peterson, Robertson, & Duke, 2016) Generally breach of
contract leads to termination of contract (Andrews, 2016) But to treat contract as repudiated
and the test to determine whether the term is vital and thus provides rise to the right to
terminate is:
 Whether it was apparent to the promisor,
 Whether it arises from the overall nature of the agreement or from certain terms or
conditions,
 The promise is of such significance to the promisee that until he had been assured of
strict or substantial performance of the promise, he would not have entered into
agreement.
2

Running Head: Managing Risk &Law in Sports
Whereas restraint of trade means, prima facie any contractual provision restraining trade is
void subject to few exceptions (Heydon, 1999)
Application
In many cases the court has intervened where a player is excluded or suspended from
membership of club that are occurred in breach of club’s rule or of principles of natural justice
(Cameron v Hogan, 1934) The court, while applying the principles of breach of contract made
reference to precedents. As Cox J said in Smith v South Australian Hockey Association Inc(1988)
48 SASR 263 at 264-5: The court of civil judicature do not sit to deal with appeals from
disciplinary tribunal of voluntary sporting organizations. Any member of sporting club
complaining that he was deprived of playing by failing to comply with the clubs rule must show
that the rules were intended to confer on him contractual rights for the performance of the
specific duty to which he holds. The agreement signed by the applicant contained a clause
which was the core of contract and the applicant did not comply with the terms of the
agreement which resulted in material breach of contract (Radan, Gooley, & Vickovich, 2010)
The court further held that if the applicant is allowed to play rugby only for enjoyment and to
compel the respondent to register him as a player then it will contravene the first respondent’s
policy which was designed to enhance true spirit of the game and conduct amongst player.
Conclusion
In a nutshell the present case is that the respondent did not allow the applicant to register
himself as a player because of his suspension, which he did not disclose at the time of signing
the contract with the new club, which was clearly a case of breach of contract. In this case the
court dismissed the applicant’s petition however make the directions for speedy hearing of his
actions. The court further held that owing to misconduct on part of applicant resulted in
suspension, which as per the common principles is not restraint in trade. The applicant
infringed the terms of the principles of common law and violated the rules laid down by the
Australian Rugby Union Code of Conduct By-Laws. The court reaffirmed the decision of
Queensland Rugby League Incorporated and held the applicant’s suspension as valid.
3

Running Head: Managing Risk &Law in Sports
Bibliography
Cameron v Hogan, HCA 24 (High Court 1934).
Andrews, N. (2016). Arbitration and Contract Law:Common Law Perspective. Switzerland: Springer
International Publishing.
Care, C. J., & Corrin, J. (2001). Contract Law in South Pacific. London: Cavendish Publishing Limited.
Carter, J. W. (2013). Contract Law in Australia. New york: Lexis Nexis Butterworth.
Clark, E., Griggs, L., Cho, G., & Hoyle, A. (2013). Contract Law in Australia. Netherlands: Kluwer Law
International.
Heydon, J. D. (1999). The Restraint of Trade Doctrine. London: Butterworths.
Peterson, J. M., Robertson, a., & Duke, A. (2016). Principles of Contract Law. Toronto: Thomson
Reuters(Proffesional) Australia Limited.
Radan, P., Gooley, J., & Vickovich, I. (2010). Principples of Australian Contract Law:Cases and Materials.
New York: LexisNexis Butterworths.
4