Knuckle-dragger
Guest
- Messages
- 390
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
De Belin v Australian Rugby League Commission Limited
[2019] FCA 688
SUMMARY
In accordance with the practice of the Federal Court in some cases of public interest, the following summary has been prepared to accompany the orders made today. This summary is intended to assist in understanding the outcome of this proceeding and is not a complete statement of the conclusions reached by the Court. The only authoritative statement of the Court’s reasons is that contained in the published reasons for judgment which will be available on the internet at the Court’s website together with this summary.
The applicant, Mr Jack de Belin, is a professional rugby league player who is contracted by St George Illawarra Rugby League Football Club Pty Ltd to play rugby league in the NRL Competition. Under his Playing Contract with St George Illawarra, he has also licenced his name, image and reputation. In his Player Registration Form attached to his Playing Contract, Mr de Belin acknowledged that his conduct on and off the field will be the subject of significant media and public scrutiny and that the success of the NRL Competition depends on continuing and developing the interest that the public have in associating with the NRL Competition and the NRL Players.
Mr de Belin was charged on 13 December 2018 with one count of aggravated sexual assault in company of a 19 year old woman. Mr de Belin is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He has pleaded not guilty to the charge and continues to maintain his innocence. Nothing in the Court’s reasons for judgment or this summary addresses or comments upon the question of Mr de Belin’s innocence or guilt.
When Mr de Belin was charged, a player charged with a criminal offence was permitted to continue to play in the NRL Competition pending the determination of the charge against that player by a court. Subsequently, however, the Australian Rugby League Commission Limited (ARLC) resolved unanimously to adopt a new policy which was given effect by the insertion of rule 22A (the new rule) into the NRL Rules on 11 March 2019. These changes were opposed by the Rugby League Players Association but supported by fifteen of the sixteen NRL Clubs.
Under the new rule, a player charged with a “Serious Criminal Offence” (i.e. punishable by a maximum penalty of 11 years or more) is automatically subject to a “No-Fault Stand Down Condition” on full pay pending the determination of the charge. As a consequence, the player is prevented from participating in the NRL Competition and other related competitions but is permitted to continue to train with his club and to have access to welfare and education support.
Mr de Belin is the first player affected by the new rule, and instituted these proceedings against the ARLC and the NRL on 6 March 2019. The trial was set down for an expedited hearing commencing on 15 April 2019.
The primary focus of the case was the challenge to the new rule as an unlawful restraint of trade. That claim was dismissed.
The question for the Court was whether the new rule, as it purported to apply in the circumstances of this case, was reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the ARLC and the NRL, having regard to the seriousness of the restraint imposed upon Mr de Belin.
The Court found that the respondents had established a clear and present danger to their legitimate interests given among other things:
1. the seriousness of the charge against Mr de Belin and the unprecedented extent of negative reporting which it attracted;
2. the fact that the reputation of the NRL Competition was already tarnished by the allegations and charges against Mr de Belin and other players during the off-season described in media reports as the “Summer from Hell”;
3. the significant escalation in concerns raised by broadcasters and sponsors following Mr de Belin’s court appearance on 12 February 2019 where detailed allegations of the charge were revealed and extensively reported in the media; and
4. the evidence of financial damage having been sustained by the NRL and clubs as a result even before the start of the 2019 season.
The Court accepted that nothing short of a rule precluding Mr de Belin and others charged in the future with serious offences of a similar nature from taking the field was likely to address the clear and present danger established by the evidence. In finding that the automatic restraint imposed upon Mr de Belin did no more than was reasonably necessary or adequate to protect the legitimate interests of the ARLC and the NRL, the Court rejected the submission that he was stood down “indefinitely” under the new rule and that the new rule operated in a relevantly retrospective manner. The Court also accepted that where criminal proceedings were not finalised there would be a real danger of contempt of court if the NRL were to investigate whether the Code of Conduct had been breached and make a determination on whether the conduct also the subject of the criminal charge had been established.
In addition to the restraint of trade claim, Mr de Belin also claimed that:
1. the imposition of the new rule constituted an unlawful interference with his Playing Contract with St George Illawarra;
2. before the new rule was adopted, the respondents had made various misleading and deceptive statements in breach of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) suggesting that they considered that he was guilty of the offences charged or had engaged in conduct in breach of the NRL Code of Conduct and that he had already been stood down; and
3. in imposing the new rule, the respondents engaged in unconscionable conduct contrary to s 21 of the ACL.
Each of these claims were also dismissed.
JUSTICE MELISSA PERRY
17 May 2019
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov..../2019/2019fca0688/summary/2019fca0688-summary
De Belin v Australian Rugby League Commission Limited
[2019] FCA 688
SUMMARY
In accordance with the practice of the Federal Court in some cases of public interest, the following summary has been prepared to accompany the orders made today. This summary is intended to assist in understanding the outcome of this proceeding and is not a complete statement of the conclusions reached by the Court. The only authoritative statement of the Court’s reasons is that contained in the published reasons for judgment which will be available on the internet at the Court’s website together with this summary.
The applicant, Mr Jack de Belin, is a professional rugby league player who is contracted by St George Illawarra Rugby League Football Club Pty Ltd to play rugby league in the NRL Competition. Under his Playing Contract with St George Illawarra, he has also licenced his name, image and reputation. In his Player Registration Form attached to his Playing Contract, Mr de Belin acknowledged that his conduct on and off the field will be the subject of significant media and public scrutiny and that the success of the NRL Competition depends on continuing and developing the interest that the public have in associating with the NRL Competition and the NRL Players.
Mr de Belin was charged on 13 December 2018 with one count of aggravated sexual assault in company of a 19 year old woman. Mr de Belin is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He has pleaded not guilty to the charge and continues to maintain his innocence. Nothing in the Court’s reasons for judgment or this summary addresses or comments upon the question of Mr de Belin’s innocence or guilt.
When Mr de Belin was charged, a player charged with a criminal offence was permitted to continue to play in the NRL Competition pending the determination of the charge against that player by a court. Subsequently, however, the Australian Rugby League Commission Limited (ARLC) resolved unanimously to adopt a new policy which was given effect by the insertion of rule 22A (the new rule) into the NRL Rules on 11 March 2019. These changes were opposed by the Rugby League Players Association but supported by fifteen of the sixteen NRL Clubs.
Under the new rule, a player charged with a “Serious Criminal Offence” (i.e. punishable by a maximum penalty of 11 years or more) is automatically subject to a “No-Fault Stand Down Condition” on full pay pending the determination of the charge. As a consequence, the player is prevented from participating in the NRL Competition and other related competitions but is permitted to continue to train with his club and to have access to welfare and education support.
Mr de Belin is the first player affected by the new rule, and instituted these proceedings against the ARLC and the NRL on 6 March 2019. The trial was set down for an expedited hearing commencing on 15 April 2019.
The primary focus of the case was the challenge to the new rule as an unlawful restraint of trade. That claim was dismissed.
The question for the Court was whether the new rule, as it purported to apply in the circumstances of this case, was reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the ARLC and the NRL, having regard to the seriousness of the restraint imposed upon Mr de Belin.
The Court found that the respondents had established a clear and present danger to their legitimate interests given among other things:
1. the seriousness of the charge against Mr de Belin and the unprecedented extent of negative reporting which it attracted;
2. the fact that the reputation of the NRL Competition was already tarnished by the allegations and charges against Mr de Belin and other players during the off-season described in media reports as the “Summer from Hell”;
3. the significant escalation in concerns raised by broadcasters and sponsors following Mr de Belin’s court appearance on 12 February 2019 where detailed allegations of the charge were revealed and extensively reported in the media; and
4. the evidence of financial damage having been sustained by the NRL and clubs as a result even before the start of the 2019 season.
The Court accepted that nothing short of a rule precluding Mr de Belin and others charged in the future with serious offences of a similar nature from taking the field was likely to address the clear and present danger established by the evidence. In finding that the automatic restraint imposed upon Mr de Belin did no more than was reasonably necessary or adequate to protect the legitimate interests of the ARLC and the NRL, the Court rejected the submission that he was stood down “indefinitely” under the new rule and that the new rule operated in a relevantly retrospective manner. The Court also accepted that where criminal proceedings were not finalised there would be a real danger of contempt of court if the NRL were to investigate whether the Code of Conduct had been breached and make a determination on whether the conduct also the subject of the criminal charge had been established.
In addition to the restraint of trade claim, Mr de Belin also claimed that:
1. the imposition of the new rule constituted an unlawful interference with his Playing Contract with St George Illawarra;
2. before the new rule was adopted, the respondents had made various misleading and deceptive statements in breach of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) suggesting that they considered that he was guilty of the offences charged or had engaged in conduct in breach of the NRL Code of Conduct and that he had already been stood down; and
3. in imposing the new rule, the respondents engaged in unconscionable conduct contrary to s 21 of the ACL.
Each of these claims were also dismissed.
JUSTICE MELISSA PERRY
17 May 2019
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov..../2019/2019fca0688/summary/2019fca0688-summary
Last edited:
shame....
