FiveStarStu
Bill McLean (32)
Oh we're just getting started.
If they get leave to go to the High Court, they might not be able to hear it until next year, given how many of our parliamentarians are secret foreigners.
Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
Oh we're just getting started.
If they get leave to go to the High Court, they might not be able to hear it until next year, given how many of our parliamentarians are secret foreigners.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Injunction might be extended if they appeal and reapply
B
BLR
Guest
On the same case perhaps...
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
For what? some kind of tort?
NSW Court of Appeal is the next step if they want to challenge this decision.
That may be possible but it would be unrelated to getting their licence cancelled. They could launch a case for damages or something though.
B
BLR
Guest
BTW Melbourne, you're welcome for developing all these players for you. Rob Clarke was a masterstoke for you.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Damages are a remedy not a cause of action. Struggle to see what they could sue them for. Maybe promisory estoppel. I think it's a pointless dead end though.
Killer
Cyril Towers (30)
Killer
Cyril Towers (30)
swingpass
Peter Sullivan (51)
the Force went to arbitration, and lost. They sought leave to appeal the decision (on the right of the ARU to terminate the alliance), won the right to appeal, but have now lost that appeal, so the right to terminate the licence decision stands. Any other actions, although related, are going to be separate. Braveheart wasn't this action in the NSW Court of Appeal ?
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
In the Supreme Court of NSW.
FiveStarStu
Bill McLean (32)
Don't get me wrong, I don't think they have a chance after reading that decision. The alliance agreement, for all the talk around it this year, seems pretty straightforward.
Doesn't mean it's not possible.
swingpass
Peter Sullivan (51)
OK so can the Appelant court hear a further appeal ? having just read the judgement it seems unlikely to succeed.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Seems the contract was ended after the broadcast deal was renegotiated.
Term means the period commencing on the Commencement Date and ending on the expiry date of the last of the SANZAR Broadcast Agreements (being 31 December 2020) or, subject to clause 2.4, if the last of the SANZAR Broadcast Agreements is terminated or renegotiated earlier as a result of the renegotiation of the commercial terms of a broadcast arrangement, such earlier date.
Clause 2.4 gave the Force the mechanism to renegotiate the terms of the contract and i suppose they didn't.
See also p58:
"It is impermissible to have recourse to background circumstances in an endeavour to ascertain what parties, acting commercially sensibly, could or should have agreed, but did not agree.
Term means the period commencing on the Commencement Date and ending on the expiry date of the last of the SANZAR Broadcast Agreements (being 31 December 2020) or, subject to clause 2.4, if the last of the SANZAR Broadcast Agreements is terminated or renegotiated earlier as a result of the renegotiation of the commercial terms of a broadcast arrangement, such earlier date.
Clause 2.4 gave the Force the mechanism to renegotiate the terms of the contract and i suppose they didn't.
See also p58:
"It is impermissible to have recourse to background circumstances in an endeavour to ascertain what parties, acting commercially sensibly, could or should have agreed, but did not agree.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Judgment seems pretty straightforward, they may not grant leave. Mebe tho. Twiggy is litigious as all hell.
- Status