D
daz
Guest
^^^His box kicking and charge downs would make the Stirzaker years look positively dreamy.
Rebels 2017
- Thread starter Highlander35
- Start date
- Status
stoff
Trevor Allan (34)
The real question is whether another injunction would be granted pending an appeal on the arbitration ruling.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jon
Chris McKivat (8)
Yeah I'm not sure exactly how it works either. From reading about the process over the last month or so I'm no clearer on how it works. It seems to be binding. But everything I've seen about this case indicates that an appeal is open to RWA, and has been since the beginning, which is one of the reasons why they agreed to go down that road.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
GoMelbRebels
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Sounds like they want the best of both worlds; a closed-door arbitration and the ability to appeal if they feel like it, like a court hearing.
stoff
Trevor Allan (34)
It would have to be pre-agreed. There is scope for it under the relevant legislation, however for leave to appeal to be granted, the court must be satisfied that the decision based on the facts of the award, was obviously wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think this is much different to any appeal.
You can only appeal on the basis that you think the decision erred on a point of law rather than just appealing the decision outright.
Whoever hears the appeal can only rule on points of law rather than look at the whole case and make a fresh decision.
Certainly the arbitration shortcuts the need for a full court case but it comes to the same result in terms of a final binding decision being made that then becomes the basis for any future review of the case.
There is definitely no avenue for either party to start over again in the Supreme Court.
You can only appeal on the basis that you think the decision erred on a point of law rather than just appealing the decision outright.
Whoever hears the appeal can only rule on points of law rather than look at the whole case and make a fresh decision.
Certainly the arbitration shortcuts the need for a full court case but it comes to the same result in terms of a final binding decision being made that then becomes the basis for any future review of the case.
There is definitely no avenue for either party to start over again in the Supreme Court.
L
Leo86
Guest
Me no lawyer but can an option to appeal be agreed on beforehand? As in appeal the decision, not a point of law. Im thinking arbitration was agreed upon to fast track but a clause included for the option to appeal the decision.
"The appointment of the arbitrator has to be agreed by both sides and there is an avenue for appeal after a decision has been handed down."
I think in this situation it will hinge on whether the broadcast agreement is considered to be the same or changed (thus voiding the alliance agreement).
On that basis it would seem pretty likely that you can appeal saying that the arbiter erred in law in agreeing that the broadcast agreement has changed.
Anyway, I guess we'll find out next week.*
*or in 48-72 weeks.
Jon
Chris McKivat (8)
Sorry, you're right, i posted that earlier pre-coffee. It was meant to hopefully speed up the pricess, but the cynic in me also thinks that the ARU were open to arbitration because of the non-disclosure aspect of it as well.
Even though there has been leak after leak through the usual suspects, we haven't seen the criteria specifics or on what basis 3 teams were (allegedly) evaluated as safe.
GoMelbRebels
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Speculation in this forum has now reached 97.6%. Well done, team, can we hit the ton?
stoff
Trevor Allan (34)
Who brought the 2.4% non speculation and why haven't the mods banned them yet.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jon
Chris McKivat (8)
Player names spelt accurately?
GoMelbRebels
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Abandoned read Protected.
lou75
Ron Walden (29)
only happy if the Force stay
- Status