Parramatta Eels' 'gang of five' claim NRL subjected them to "public flogging"
The five Parramatta Eels directors and officials suspended over alleged salary-cap rorting claim the NRL did not give them the proper chance to respond before they were publicly named and shamed in preliminary findings against the club.
In the NSW Supreme Court on Tuesday, barrister Arthur Moses SC, said suspended chairman Steve Sharp, directors Tom Issa and Peter Serrao, chief executive John Boulous and football operations manager Daniel Anderson were not afforded procedural fairness by the governing body and as a result the suspensions are void.
"In effect there's been a public flogging of the plaintiffs because of the way the allegations have been made public without the opportunity to respond to them," Mr Moses said.
But counsel for the NRL, Lachlan Gyles SC, accused the quintet of taking legal action against their interim suspensions "to stay in their roles and continue to exert influence over the club" pending the NRL's final determination as to penalties for "systemic rorting of the salary cap".
Mr Gyles said it was unclear why the five men want to do so, given there is no evidence the club wants them to stay on, or that it would reinstate them should they manage to have the interim suspensions overturned.
The NRL says it suspended the so-called "gang of five" in line with its own rules when, on May 3, it announced a raft of provisional sanctions for alleged salary cap indiscretions. Pending a final investigation, the club could be docked 12 competition points and fined $1 million.
But Mr Moses told Justice James Stevenson there is nothing in the NRL rules that allows League Central to suspend an official without going through a process including the issuing of show cause notices and providing a proper opportunity to respond.
He said the interim suspensions were announced at an NRL press conference about a breach notice served to the club and the quintet were told their registrations would be cancelled in five days unless they could show cause as to why they shouldn't.
"Serious allegations were made in a public forum that [salary cap rorting] was done with the knowledge and support of the board and senior executives and this was made public within a short time of the notices being provided to the plaintiffs," Mr Moses said.
"Our friends [the NRL] say they had to jump in to protect the integrity of the game, but [the investigation] has been going on for a year and there is no explanation as to why they pulled the trigger on May 3 and why they couldn't afford procedural fairness."
The cancellation of the plaintiffs' registration results in serious consequences for their "livelihoods and reputations", Mr Moses said.
However Mr Gyles said under the rules the NRL is not required to afford procedural fairness when issuing an automatic, interim suspension.
Mr Gyles said procedural fairness is only required before a final determination to cancel a person's registration is made.
He said the NRL has satisfied that requirement by giving the five plaintiffs until June 3 to show cause why they should not have their registrations cancelled.
Further, the NRL has is an independent appeal panel which can hear a challenge to any decision on registrations made by CEO Todd Greenberg.
And he said in issuing the interim suspensions, the NRL was not telling the five what they could or couldn't do during the interim period, including how they discharge their duties as directors or officials.
The hearing continues.
