Tyrone starlet signs Swans deal / Coney staying in Ireland

[connolly]

Sorry to the rest of you guys, have to respond to this.


Dream on, dreamer. Cork are unique in that they were (as a county, a people) stupid enough to allow themselves (The Cork County Board) be ruled with an iron fist by one man for so many years, who if taken out of the equation would solve the majority of the issues that the players have. I'd imagine you know who I'm talking about. Cork GAA members have the power to remove this man but are unable to organise themselves into a coherent block within the county board to remove this man. Cork are unique in that only the players have the gumption to stand up to this man, but even they do so in such a haphazard way that any concessions they negotiate one season, they get out manouvered on in the next season - see above re stupid. The embarrassing thing for me is that I was born there, and have many relatives involved in the scene down in Cork, they don't bother moaning in my presence anymore as they'll be told the truth.

Anyhoo - I'll park my contributions here, Coney is not going to be sued by anyone, regardless of whether or not he should be. Off to Penrith for the day, O joy

Well thanks for clearing up that you are not a supporter of those shafters in Ulster. For those who are genuinely interested in the Cork version of the timeless struggle between player and administrator it got really serious just before Christmas when Father Cotter charged in and gave the hurlers some stick .
http://www.corkman.ie/sport/gaelic-f...e-1580335.html

[SimonH]

O dear. ...

So maybe some bum Australian law firms wouldn't have the wit or the ticker to recommend litigation. But to claim that such litigation would be laughed out of court shows both ignorance and arrogance.

Study son study.

Yeah, those bum law firms who, like, give advice about whether litigation would be a complete waste of time and money, & all.

The non-existent case for the Swans has further evaporated, and your response is, 'yeah, he would deny us even the most tenuous and unlikely of cases, wouldn't he? From which we can conclude that the case must be really, really strong'. The complete lack of any evidence is the clearest sign the conspiracy is working.

Despite his previous argument being based largely on Australian authorities (hint: the 'SA' in 'SASR' stands for South Australia, not South Anglia), the latest exciting development in connolly SC's advice is that the Sydney Swans should go off and file suit in Northern Ireland, based on:

• a bloke who would need to be flown halfway around the world to tell the court he reckons he heard something about conversations he didn't witness ('it was the vibe of the thing, your Honour')
• the same bloke inevitably making a concession that he would have no idea whether any conversation occurred before or after Coney's contract was signed
• where we've got no proof of any loss suffered and our argument for damages is, 'well, y'know, these are bad, bad people your Honour; you should give us lots of money to punish them, like, lots'

It's hard to know whether I should encourage you to stop because you're embarrassing yourself, or keep going because you're increasingly moving into the world of science fiction.

Oh, and it's spelt 'punitive'.

[connolly]

Yeah, those bum law firms who, like, give advice about whether litigation would be a complete waste of time and money, & all.

The non-existent case for the Swans has further evaporated, and your response is, 'yeah, he would deny us even the most tenuous and unlikely of cases, wouldn't he? From which we can conclude that the case must be really, really strong'. The complete lack of any evidence is the clearest sign the conspiracy is working.

Despite his previous argument being based largely on Australian authorities (hint: the 'SA' in 'SASR' stands for South Australia, not South Anglia), the latest exciting development in connolly SC's advice is that the Sydney Swans should go off and file suit in Northern Ireland, based on:

• a bloke who would need to be flown halfway around the world to tell the court he reckons he heard something about conversations he didn't witness ('it was the vibe of the thing, your Honour')
• the same bloke inevitably making a concession that he would have no idea whether any conversation occurred before or after Coney's contract was signed
• where we've got no proof of any loss suffered and our argument for damages is, 'well, y'know, these are bad, bad people your Honour; you should give us lots of money to punish them, like, lots'

It's hard to know whether I should encourage you to stop because you're embarrassing yourself, or keep going because you're increasingly moving into the world of science fiction.

Oh, and it's spelt 'punitive'.

The case would be filed and heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales as the court of forum but the law applied would be that of UK.
As i said an age ago it would depend on the evidence. The is some evidence of an admission that Cavanaugh influenced Coney to breach his contract in the form of a public statement by Coney. But as you have degenerated into an unpleasant undergraduate sarcasm and pedantry the problems of hard cases shouldn't furrow any smooth brow untroubled by the complexities of life.

[ROK Lobster]

It's a very long time since I read it, but weren't the relevant parties in Lumley and Gye in competition? Awfully relevant in the context of things I would think - unless Connolly plans to follow the lad around Ireland and stop depositing his hard earned in the Swans' coffers.

[Xie Shan]

It's a very long time since I read it, but weren't the relevant parties in Lumley and Gye in competition? Awfully relevant in the context of things I would think - unless Connolly plans to follow the lad around Ireland and stop depositing his hard earned in the Swans' coffers.

I don't know the case (only did a couple of semesters of business law) but this thread is the perfect example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I blame the interwebs (and publicly available cases on AustLII).

[connolly]

I don't know the case (only did a couple of semesters of business law) but this thread is the perfect example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I blame the interwebs (and publicly available cases on AustLII).

Business law!! Business law FFS!!! We are talking TORT. And its not a cake. If a little knowledge is dangerous sheer ignorance is disasterous.

[connolly]

It's a very long time since I read it, but weren't the relevant parties in Lumley and Gye in competition? Awfully relevant in the context of things I would think - unless Connolly plans to follow the lad around Ireland and stop depositing his hard earned in the Swans' coffers.

They were indeed. Lumley a solicitor who also managed Her Majesty's theatre chose not to sue the lovely Miss Wagner as she was the neice of the towering meglomaniac Richard and he possibly wanted to avoid an artistic equivalent of armageddon. So he sued the chancer Gye. And won. However, it is not an essental element of tort that the tortfaesor be in competition, commercial or otherwise. The elements of the tort were set out by Lord Denning in Torquay Hotels. The principle of Lumley v. Gye is that each of the parties to a contract has a "right to the performance" of it: and it is wrong for another to procure one of the parties to break it or not to perform it. That principle was extended a step further by Lord Macnaghten in Quinn v. Leathem [1901] A.C. 495, so that each of the parties has a right to have his "contractual relations" with the other duly observed. "It is,a violation of legal right to interfere with contractual relations recognised by law if there be no sufficient justification for the interference. " That statement was adopted and applied by the Privy Council in Jasperson v. Dominion Tobacco Co. [1923] A.C. 709. The principle was further extended to cover "deliberate and direct interference with the execution of a contract without that causing any breach." Denning set out the principle in three elements:
1.There must be interference in the execution of a contract. The interference is not confined to the procurement of a breach of contract. It extends to a case where a third person prevents or hinders one party from performing his contract, even though not a breach.
2. The interference must be deliberate. The person must know of the contract or, at any rate, turn a blind eye to it and intend to interfere with it: Emerald Construction Co. v. Lowthian [1966] 1 W.L.R. 691.
3. The interference must be direct. Indirect interference will not do.
In Rookes v. Barnard [1964] A.C. 1129 the defendants interfered with the employment of Rookes by unlawful means, through intimidation of his employers and they were held to be acting unlawfully, even though the employers committed no breach of contract as they gave Rookes proper notice. In Stratford v. Lindley [1965] A.C. 269, the defendants interfered with the business of Stratford by unlawful means, by inducing workers to break their contracts of employment by refusing to handle barges. They were held to be acting unlawfully, even in regard to new business of Stratford which was not the subject of contract.

So we come to the issue:
1. Coney breached his contract.
2. A third party must be aware of the existence of the contract. Tyrone, its officials or agents certainly were. Every GAA follower in Ulster knew about Coney's signature on the contract.
3. Anyone connected to Tyrone in Ulster who spoke or communicated to Coney and encouraged, offered a deal, threatened or pressured him to breach the contract would be liable.

We have grounds of an action if the three elements above are met in evidence on the balance of probabilities. Young Murphy seems to have some information.

[Xie Shan]

If a little knowledge is dangerous sheer ignorance is disasterous.

On that point, I couldn't agree more:

"It's always hard not to want to educate the dumb...or kill them". Heh.

Still think following on from Simon's post it'd be fairly dicey trying to prove the existence of all three elements in Coney's case. Though I somehow suspect that won't stop you trying to convince us...just like with Bevo

[giant]

That law talk is really, really boring.

At least you don't have to do it as a job.

While I'm mightily peeved at this particular instance, there is some old Irish blood in me that's pleased the GAA has won one battle at least - the seemingly relentless plundering of an amateur league appears a tad mercenary for my tastes.

[ROK Lobster]

3. Anyone connected to Tyrone in Ulster who spoke or communicated to Coney and encouraged, offered a deal, threatened or pressured him to breach the contract would be liable.

We have grounds of an action if the three elements above are met in evidence on the balance of probabilities. Young Murphy seems to have some information.

Point 3 is plainly wrong, on the grounds you set out above. There is nothing wrong with offering someone employed by another a deal or applying some pressure to breach a contract. Especially in an employment context. I get regular calls (or did before the recent economic unpleasantness) from people offering all sorts of things. Some people I know even meet them, and some have accepted their offers.

There is no grounds for an action in this instance, perhaps only in negligence against a lawyer who advises the Swans that they have a reasonable chance of success.

[connolly]

Point 3 is plainly wrong, on the grounds you set out above. There is nothing wrong with offering someone employed by another a deal or applying some pressure to breach a contract. Especially in an employment context. I get regular calls (or did before the recent economic unpleasantness) from people offering all sorts of things. Some people I know even meet them, and some have accepted their offers.

There is no grounds for an action in this instance, perhaps only in negligence against a lawyer who advises the Swans that they have a reasonable chance of success.

There certainly are. If the other two elements are present (breach of contract and intent) direct inducement is an unlawful act. The "free"market in labour doesn't exist against binding contracts. Its interesting that in the last ten years the myth of the free exchange of labour has taken such a grip. Can be a dangerous misconception. It all depends on the contract and whether there has been a breach. Resignation with notice is usually not a breach of contract. However in the Coney instance there appears to be a breach of contract.

[Cheer Squad mbr]

This thread is about as exciting as a grasshopper on heat.

[ugg]

Stop the legal action, he may be back according to Tadhg.

Irish star may return to Swans - realfooty.com.au

[connolly]

Apparently the urgers to breach the contract are still at it in Ulster.
"I know it's so hard for an 18-year-old to be on the other side of the world for so long and the thing with Kyle, he'd have a lot of people trying to convince him to stay, and do this and do that, because he's probably the best Gaelic football player in Ireland.

So he really is that good. The best in Ireland.

He was fantastic last year in the under 18s. He's the next big thing, so why wouldn't they try their best to keep him there?

And until we get serious about enforcing our contract the wide boys of Tyrone will continue to make a joke of the contractual obligations of Coney.
Give him 21 days to get his arse back to Bondi. If he prefers the grey skies and officials of Tyrone (scabs and shafters) we must initiate an action. If not we are as weak as a Davo tackle and deserve to be shafted.

[ShockOfHair]

Impressed as I am that our legal squadron is still plotting to hang, draw and quarter Kyle Coney, I don't see there's been any breach of contract.

There's clearly a get-out clause in the contract for both parties, equivalent to the three-month probation that normal punters (and possibly even lawyers) get. It makes sense; it would be difficult to persuade Irish parents to send their teenager across the world without some kind of fallback, ie, six-week trial. The kid exercised it.

That would also explain why in all the stories on Coney, not a single one has even mentioned contractual issues.

Sorry to interrupt, gentlemen. Continue with your learned arguments.