Court Decision from Last unfair dismissal case

[black_dot]

someone brought up in another thread the unfair dismissal case our club last were represented by our current board in and the outcome. This came up in discussion about the up-coming case V anderson. we have the same "team sheet" representing us in the upcoming "match"


I'll leave a link as it's a full court decision and would take ages to download this thread each time.

The applicant as referred to is Peter Gow.

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/ircjudgments/2002nswirc.nsf/c45212a2bef99be4ca256736001f37bd/6f19674e9d2ebb29ca256c3d00839963?OpenDocument

 

[Feej]

Who is the 3rd Respondent? ;-)

102 I do not consider the third respondent to be a witness of credit. In the absence of corroboration or objective evidence, I am disinclined to accept the third respondent's evidence where it conflicts with other evidence, particularly in relation to his account of the Meeting unless substantiated by some other means. In this respect, I adopt the same approach to his evidence as that of the applicant where conflicts of evidence arise. His position was plainly partisan and his evidence was given with the aim of advocating a particular case. This aim was pursued with such determination that plain inconsistencies were never rectified, and concessions were not made even when the most obtuse observer could see that they were required. I will refer to some such instances during this judgment in the context of particular further findings, but I have extracted a passage of cross-examination concerning the solicitor's letter referred to above as an illustration of this conclusion:

• • • Q. Would you look at paragraph 91. You record a conversation you had there with Ms Mott, do you see that?
      A. Yes.
      
      Q. Why did you include that conversation in this affidavit?
      A. Because I thought it was most important when I find out that there had been a letter from the Licencing Board with regards to the C E not being able to obtain the licence.
      
      Q. Did you read that letter yourself?
      A. I had not read it, I didn't know up until then when I saw the letter.
      
      Q. Did you see the letter after this conversation?
      A. I would have seen the letter after the conversation, yes.
      
      Q. When you read the letter --?
      A. But I had not seen it. If I may say, before I went it was well after, like, it was not the next day, that is what I am answering.
      
      Q. It was some time later?
      A. Yes.
      
      Q. That letter is annexed to your affidavit as BP 14?
      A. Yes. That is the one from Sergeant Devenish, is this the one?
      
      Q. Yes?
      A. Yes.
      
      Q. It is actually marked BP 14.4?
      A. Yes.
      
      Q. When you read that letter some time after this conversation with Ms Mott, you realised that what she told you was not true?
      A. I don't agree with that.
      
      Q. Look at what you say she said: "Peter has been knocked back by the LAB to have the licence". You know that is not true?
      A. Sorry, could you repeat that?
      
      Q. Paragraph 91 you say she said: "Peter has been knocked back by the LAB to hold the licence".
      A. Am I aware - I was advised of that, yes.
      
      Q. This is what she is telling you?
      A. Yes.
      
      Q. You know he was not knocked back by the LAB, was he?
      A. I was not aware what had happened with the LAC at that stage.
      
      Q. After you received this letter from Sergeant Devenish; would you have look at that again. That is not a knock back by the LAB, is it?
      A. That "You are not a fit and proper person to hold a licence"? I read it that way.
      
      Q. Have another look at it, Mr Pierce. You are not an unintelligent man; it says: "Take notice I object to your application for approval"; do you see that?
      A. Yes.
      
      Q. So it is an objection by Sergeant Devenish not the Liquor Administration Board or the Licencing Court?
      A. Right.
      
      Q. He advised that the application, that is, the application for approval to act as secretary, is listed for hearing at the Licencing Court on a day to be fixed?
      A. Right.
      
      Q. So at this point in time he had not been knocked back by the LAB to hold a licence, had he?
      A. By the wording of that it had to go to a hearing.
      
      Q. You agree with me now, do you, that what you say Ms Mott told you in paragraph 91 was not true?
      A. Well, obviously Sergeant Devenish's report would have a bearing on that but at the time I had not had the letter.
      
      Q. You accept now what she told you in paragraph 91 was not true?
      A. I'm not accepting that because I was not aware of it at the time.
      
      Q. You are aware now it is not true?
      A. I have this here in front of me now.
      
      Q. When you read that notice of objection from Sergeant Devenish that was well before you prepared this affidavit, wasn't it?
      A. It would have been, yes.
      
      Q. You prepared this affidavit with some care?
      A. I did.
      
      Q. And with assistance from lawyers?
      A. That's correct.
      
      Q. At the time you prepared the affidavit you knew he had not been knocked back by the LAB, all that had happened is that a Sergeant had filed an objection?
      A. No, that is not correct because I in the meantime had asked Mr Gow had he heard from them and he said No, he had not so obviously I was concerned.
      
      Q. Stay with the question; you knew he had not been knocked back?
      A. No, I didn't at the time.
      
      Q. At the time you prepared this affidavit you knew he had not been knocked back?
      A. By that correspondence?
      
      Q. Yes?
      A. That is correct.
      
      Q. You are not aware of any other correspondence, are you?
      A. No, I'm not aware of any other correspondence.

103 My observations of him in the witness box lead me to conclude that his demeanour in Court matched his demeanour in the Meeting: a man determined to obstruct anything which may benefit the applicant, as if in pursuit of a cause, irrespective of how the statements he may make or actions he may have taken may strain credibility. To anticipate future sections of the judgment, it is notable that the third respondent's evidence in relation to some aspects of the Meeting was unique and more extreme even than that of Mr Clarkson: the third respondent was the only director who denied that the applicant read the Terms Sheet to the Meeting and the only director who stated that he did not read it himself.

 

[black_dot]

Applicant is Peter Gow
1st and 2nd repsondants are the sharks leagues and sharks football clubs
3rd respondant is Barry Pearce.

 

[Frenzy.]

Gold dot, gold.

 

[Feej]

Can you believe that this is the same guy running our club!

"102 I do not consider the third respondent to be a witness of credit. In the absence of corroboration or objective evidence, I am disinclined to accept the third respondent's evidence where it conflicts with other evidence, particularly in relation to his account of the Meeting unless substantiated by some other means. In this respect, I adopt the same approach to his evidence as that of the applicant where conflicts of evidence arise. His position was plainly partisan and his evidence was given with the aim of advocating a particular case. This aim was pursued with such determination that plain inconsistencies were never rectified, and concessions were not made even when the most obtuse observer could see that they were required."

What a joke.

 

[Shark]

I wonder if we'll get the same magistrate?

If so, Opes has us over a barrell!!!

 

[black_dot]

Agreed feej that the judge had a very dim view of our presidents creditbility, but there is also plenty of examples of the judge questioning Gows credibility aswell, to the point of not believing his version of events in the chinese. The judge also queries plentuy of others credt and basically the entire summary reads pretty badly for our entire club and those that have power in the place.

Not a pretty judgement for us was it ? regardless who won or lost.

That is my main fear as the next half rolls around.

 

[Feej]

Heve we ever not had any problems in our club and the people running it???

 

[black_dot]

Not since my fanaticism of following and supporting the club began Feej.

My personal stance is that the bloke running it previously to the current bloke got far better results in terms of exposure for the club, marketting, gates, players and player profiles, recruitment ( guys like green, richardson, John and marty lang etc ), building and using our juniors , sponsorship and sponsor satisfaction. I know he stepped on a few toes at the club absolutley and wasnt the best people person, but so be it, the results were better than those we have now.

The best reading in that court case is the information about the developement plans and the plans that Gow was negotiating and had basically put in place before our current board shafted him. It's good reading and basically says that had Gow remained in control of that development, it would be finished well and truly by now and we would be approx $50M richer. That isnt gow talking either, that is unopposed evidence.

I guess I also liked when Gow said, the club should NEVER sell the land, NEVER. He had structured a deal where we gained $50mil yet remained major shareholders in our biggest asset, the land.

We all know where the developement has gone since his dismissal.

I base my feelings on things like these and the ones I mention above, nothing to do with personalities, cred in court, which bloke likes the sharks more, just on results, it is the only yard stick to use.

 

[Frenzy.]

I can't see this one being ANY different because processes were not followed in Ando's case either. If this gets before the IRC it'll be more tongue tied blithering from the board without doubt.

It's for this reason I agree with pogo, this one has to go away out of court.

 

[black_dot]

You may be right there captain, and pogo too. But a settlement out of court, would you class that as a loss ? and should it be the straw that breaks the camels back in regards to how many chances our board has had to get things right ?

It is my opinion that a settlement out of court would be a failure by the board and an acceptance that they got got it wrong in the first place.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

I would also like it to be known that by doing nothing, we are already probably more than 50 million richer.

 

[black_dot]

another very interesting fact mentioned in the court hearing we talk of is that before Gow came into the meeting to talk about his future, 2 days after the dragon jumper incident, Pearce organised to get staff signatures on a petition saying they supported him , he also got copies of all the letters the club got after the incident and a list of phone calls the desk took about it, he also printed off and listed comments made on the SHARKS WEBSITE by fans. These were all put into folders for each board member to read before the meeting.

 

[black_dot]

I would also like it to be known that by doing nothing, we are already probably more than 50 million richer.

how do you surmise that that Reefy ? purely based on capital gain on the real estate value ?

If that's what you mean then I disagree. I was at a meeting yesterday someone who knows the land well and is very active in the sydney developement market and buys anything and everything if he thinks there is a buck in it.

It's his opinion, and the opinion of others that I deal with a fair bit with work, that the value of the site has actually been lessened ( obviously it's value has increased in 6 years, but less then the median growth for such sites in greater metro area) due to the delay and problems the club has bumbled their way through.

 

[black_dot]

But that arguement aside, even if we agree to disagree over the value of the land or any increase over the past 6 years, it still doesn't make any sense that the club has gained $50mil by doing nothing as you say....for the simple reason that the club , under Gows plan, was still going to be major share holder in the land.......so any land value increase after construction was still the clubs profit.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

well that is not what I thought.
I was under the impression tht Gows plan was with lend lease & sold the assett off , but leaving The ground & club there.

 

[black_dot]

You're right in that it was with Lend Lease mate. Gow was adamant that any deal should , and would not include selling the land.

I thought that was the case and that seems to be re-enforced in the court docs on that site. I may be wrong though. I as under the impression the deal involved us keeping a large majority stake in the land and it's value, and lend lease taking on planning and construction and gaining the revenue from unit/building sales on the site. It was a sweet deal for them, they get developement profits without having to buy land for cash.

Our benefit is the on-going land value, and any subsequent increase in value, along with lease payments yearly for a bloody large amount for the land.

 

[Frenzy.]

You may be right there captain, and pogo too. But a settlement out of court, would you class that as a loss ? and should it be the straw that breaks the camels back in regards to how many chances our board has had to get things right ?

It is my opinion that a settlement out of court would be a failure by the board and an acceptance that they got got it wrong in the first place.

Well, if settled out of court, even if only for his wage it'd be a loss because it would be payment without service and we'll also being paying Raper.

 

[PJ]

I can't see this one being ANY different because processes were not followed in Ando's case either. If this gets before the IRC it'll be more tongue tied blithering from the board without doubt.

Is it being heard in the IRC?

I thought there had been a legal change recently and employment contracts over a certain value were not heard by the IRC and that Ando's contract would exceed that figure.

If it was heard in a different court to the IRC then the club would have a better shot at winning.

 

[black_dot]

Civil Court.

worse for the club IMO as damages will then become an issue.