Sharp v National Rugby League Ltd - [2016] NSWSC 730

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Sharp v National Rugby League Ltd [2016] NSWSC 730
Hearing dates: 31 May 2016
Decision date: 07 June 2016
Before: Stevenson J
Decision:
Proceedings dismissed

Catchwords: ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS - interim suspension of registration as Club Official pending final determination - natural justice - procedural fairness - whether Club Official entitled to be heard before interim suspension - proper construction of rules - whether right to be heard before interim suspension excluded by language of the rules
Cases Cited: Australian Workers’ Union v Bowen (No 2) (1948) 77 CLR 601
Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] 1 AC 1101
Dickason v Edwards [1910] HCA7; 10 CLR 243
McClelland v Burning Palms Surf Life Saving Club [2002] NSWSC 470
Noon v Bondi Beach Astra Retirement Village Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 202
Fitzgerald v Masters (1956) 95 CLR 420
Westpac Banking Corporation v Tanzone Pty Limited [2000] NSWCA 25
Texts Cited: K Lewison and D Hughes, The Interpretation of Contracts in Australia, (2012, Lawbook Co)
Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary (3rd ed 2004, LexisNexis Butterworths)
Concise Oxford Dictionary (2011, Oxford University Press)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Stephen Sharp (First Plaintiff)
Tom Issa (Second Plaintiff)
Peter Serrao (Third Plaintiff)
John Boulous (Fourth Plaintiff)
Daniel Anderson (Fifth Plaintiff)
National Rugby League Limited (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A R Moses SC with R L Gall (Plaintiffs)
L V Gyles SC with C Colquhoun (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Thompson Eslick Solicitors (Plaintiffs)
Kennedys (Australasia) Pty Ltd (Defendant)

File Number(s): SC 2016/135088

Judgment

Parramatta National Rugby League Club Limited (“the Club”) participates in the national rugby league competition as the “Parramatta Eels”.
Mr Stephen Sharp, Mr Tom Issa, and Mr Peter Serrao, the first to third plaintiffs, are directors of the Club.
Mr John Boulous, the fourth plaintiff, is the Chief Executive Officer of the Club. Mr Daniel Anderson, the fifth plaintiff, is the General Manager, Football Operations of the Club.
The defendant, National Rugby League Limited (“NRL”) administers the national rugby league competition in which the Club competes.
The NRL publishes, amongst other documents, the “National Rugby League Rules” (“the Rules”).
Each of the plaintiffs is registered with the NRL as a “Club Official” and is, as a matter of contract, bound to comply with the Rules.
For some time, prior to 3 May 2016, the NRL has been investigating whether the Club, and Club Officials, including the plaintiffs, have been in breach of the Rules.
Rule 22 sets out a procedure to be followed if the CEO of the NRL (currently Mr Todd Greenberg) forms the opinion that a Club Official has failed to comply with the Rules, or is otherwise not a fit and proper person to remain registered as a Club Official.
Rule 22 is critical to a determination of this case and, relevantly, is in the following terms:

“(1) Should the…Chief Executive Officer form the opinion, in [his or her] absolute discretion, that a [Club Official]:
(a) Has failed…to comply with these Rules…; or

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sharp v National Rugby League Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NSWSC 730
Decision Date: 07 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Sharp v National Rugby League Ltd, the Court was presented with a dispute concerning the interim suspension of a registration as a Club Official under the NRL's constitution and rules. The dispute arose after the NRL sought to suspend the plaintiff's registration as a Club Official pending the final determination of a complaint made against him. The plaintiff argued that the NRL's decision to suspend his registration without first providing him an opportunity to be heard breached the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The primary legal issues for the Court to determine were whether the Club Official was entitled to be heard before the interim suspension and whether the rules of the association correctly excluded such a right. Specifically, the Court needed to interpret the relevant provisions of the NRL's rules and constitution to ascertain whether the language used precluded the plaintiff from being heard before his registration was suspended. The Court was tasked with determining whether the language of the rules permitted the NRL to suspend the plaintiff's registration without first providing him with an opportunity to respond to the complaint against him.

The Court found that the NRL's rules did not explicitly exclude the right of the Club Official to be heard before an interim suspension. The Court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and natural justice, holding that the rules should be construed in a manner that does not deprive individuals of a fair hearing before their registration is suspended. The Court determined that the language of the rules did not preclude the plaintiff from being heard before his registration was suspended, and thus the NRL's decision to suspend his registration without first providing him an opportunity to respond was unlawful. Consequently, the Court ordered that the NRL's interim suspension of the plaintiff's registration be set aside, and it directed the NRL to provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to be heard before any further action is taken regarding the complaint against him.

Orders