MLC310 Sport and the Law Part B: Written Response Submissions Analysis

This document provides a comprehensive solution to a Sport and the Law assignment, addressing two problem-based questions. The first question examines the validity of a contract between an unincorporated association (TAC) and a council, considering whether a new contract with another party (AAC) would violate the existing agreement. The analysis draws on the case of Carlton Cricket and Football Social Club v Joseph, concluding the initial contract's validity is questionable due to TAC's unincorporated status. The second question focuses on a coach (Lucy) facing sanctions and a blacklist following allegations of misconduct. It explores Lucy's rights to appeal and potential legal actions against the VGSL and the Commission for Children and Young People, citing the Skelton v Australian Rugby Union Limited case to highlight the denial of natural justice and proprietary loss. The document employs the IRAC method, providing legal reasoning, application of relevant cases, and reasoned conclusions for each scenario.

Student Number 1
MLC310 Sport and the Law
Part B – Written Response Submissions
Student Details

Student Number 2
Problem-based question 1
The facts are that; TAC is an association recognized by law and its members compete and
participate in the South Victorian Athletics Club Competition.
TAC entered into a contract with the Stratham Council in Victoria to use the council run Lingham
Sports Center, which uses for athletics practice for the sum of $ 3000 for three years to use one of the ovals.
Sally Innes signed the contract on behalf of TAC as the ‘nominating trustee’ although Sally has never
been nominated as a trustee via any formal Cub process.
AAC approached Stratham Council to use the same oval facilities as used by TAC for the sum of $
5000 per year at any day and time, and Stratham wants to cancel the TAC contract as they are short on cash.
The matter in this is whether the contract entered between TAC and Stratham is valid and legally
binding; and whether discussing a new and improved contract with AAC for the ground (at any time) would
be violating the legal agreement with TAC. TAC in this context is considered an Unicorporated Association
(UA) which is not for profit ; as such, it cannot purport to have entered into a contract unless all its
members entered individually into a contract with the Council. The advice in this case would borrow from
the ruling of Carlton Cricket and Football Social Club v Joseph [1970] VR 487 in which a stay of execution was
held that the social club cannot enter into a contract, and neither can anyone enter into a legally binding
contract to represent it 1 (see image). As such, the advice to give the Stratham Council in lieu of interest
from AAC to use the oval used by TAC is to proceed and have an agreement .
1 Nexus Notes, "Unicorporated Non Profit Associations", Nexusnotes-Media.S3-Ap-Southeast-2.Amazonaws.Com,
accessed 2 April 2020, https://nexusnotes-media.s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/edd/
2015/05/LPAB-Law-of-Associations-exams-notes-17515-copye.pdf.

Student Number 3
Problem Question Two
The facts of the matter are that Lucy Du Plessis has been coaching and umpiring for baseball games
in Victoria for many years, and at OGBC, she is in charge of the under 10’s and under 12s.
Andrea, a player for OGBC has been dropped, despite assertions that she is a good player, and her mother
Shannon, working with other parents and her brother, seek to evaluate Lucy’s conduct, especially because
Andrea has reported that she spans them on the back and yells at them.
Lucy is reported to the VGSL and banned from coaching in the VGSL for seven years; she is also reported to
the Commission for Children and Young people that put her on a blacklist.
Lucy is distraught and suffer depression and is barred from umpiring representative baseball, for which she
is PAID well for.
The advice to her would be that she can actually appeal her being barred and dismissed on the
grounds that being barred will result in her losing a right proprietary nature, that is, being barred from
umpiring will lead to her losing income. A similar case will guide the advice given to Lucy, that is the Skelton
v Australian Rugby Union Limited & Anor [2002] QSC 193 , where Skelton was punished for a violent
conduct, which was also reported to the police and resulted in an admission by Skelton of a charge of
simple assault 2. This followed his admission of violent conduct for having kicked another player. His appeal
to be allowed to play in the Brisbane Club Competition was dismissed on the grounds that he registered and
played for the ‘Norths’ simply for his personal ‘pleasure’. The judgment acknowledged that the appeal could
only be heard in this case if the sentence imposed by the QRL had denied him natural justice and was too
harsh.
The differences in the cases here is that Lucy has been denied ‘natural justice’ in that she has not
been given a hearing to defend herself, her dismissal and being barred is purely out of an allegation, a
dislike, and a conjecture by a UA and its members. Given that the OGBC is a UA, it cannot be sued, and Lucy
is therefore, Not at liberty to sue the OGBC and this is similar to the case of Carlton Cricket and Football
Social Club v Joseph [1970] VR 487 which holds that a UA cannot be sued and is similar to Cameron v
Hogan3. However, her being blacklisted by Commission for Children and Young People without a hearing is
against natural justice, and her being barred from umpiring representative baseball, for which she IS PAID
very well raises another angle. She can sue the Commission for Children and Young People on the grounds
of having had suffered unnatural justice (not being heard), and more importantly, her proprietary loss in
terms of income from umpiring representative baseball; she has a pecuniary interest4 in this situation.
2 Queensland Judgments, "[2002] QSC 193 - Skelton V Australian Rugby Union Limited",
Queenslandjudgments.Com.Au, Last modified 2002, https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/case/id/47775.
3 Deirdre O'Connor, Actions Against Voluntary Associations And The Legal System, ebook, 1st ed. Melbourne:
Monash University, 2010, http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/1977/15.pdf.
4 Paul Karp, "Court Rejects Claim Dutton's Childcare Interests Threaten Validity Of His Decisions", The Guardian,
Last modified 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/16/court-rejects-claim-duttons-
childcare-interests-threaten-validity-of-his-decisions.

Student Number 4
References
1. Nexus Notes. "Unicorporated Non Profit Associations". Nexusnotes-Media.S3-Ap-Southeast-
2.Amazonaws.Com. Accessed 2 April 2020. https://nexusnotes-media.s3-ap-southeast-
2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/edd/2015/05/LPAB-Law-of-Associations-exams-notes-
17515-copye.pdf.
2. Queensland Judgments. "[2002] QSC 193 - Skelton V Australian Rugby Union Limited".
Queenslandjudgments.Com.Au, Last modified 2002.
https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/case/id/47775.
3. O'Connor, Deirdre. Actions Against Voluntary Associations And The Legal System. Ebook. 1st ed.
Melbourne: Monash University, 2010.
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/1977/15.pdf.
4. Karp, Paul. "Court Rejects Claim Dutton's Childcare Interests Threaten Validity Of His Decisions". The
Guardian, Last modified 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/16/court-
rejects-claim-duttons-childcare-interests-threaten-validity-of-his-decisions.