Barry v Ginnity
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 13 April 2005 |
| Date | 13 April 2005 |
| Docket Number | Record No: 2004 No. EQ 038/04 |
| Court | Circuit Court |
THE CIRCUIT COURT
Record No: 2004 No. EQ 038/04
Contract - Oral contract - Sporting organisation - GAA club - Terms no clear - Manager and selector of football club - Rules of association forming part of contracts - Selection of players to panel - Some selected players not eligible - Incident in dressing room prior to game - Disciplinary procedures of GAA - Special investigation committee established to ascertain what happened in dressing room incident - Enquiry - Suspensions - Whether procedures adopted were fair - Whether procedures breached contractual terms - Whether GAA disciplinary hearings are of acceptable standard - Test for courts to intervene in sporting bodies decisions
The plaintiffs were county manager and a selector/physical therapist respectively to the Meath Junior Football team for the season 2002 - 2003. While there was no written contract it was acknowledged that a contract was in place. A dispute arose of the adding of players to the panel who were not eligible. On the day of a match an incident occurred in the players dressing room leading to the chairman being pushed which became the subject of an enquiry under GAA by the setting up of a Special Investigations Committee. The plaintiffs in the twin proceedings sued for breach of contract and a determination that decisions of the Meath County Board were contrary to the principles of natural and constitutional justice and basic fairness.
Held by Judge McMahon sitting at Naas Circuit Court in dismissing the plaintiffs’ cases:
1. The procedures implimented by the Meath County Board were properly observed in accordance with the GAA Rules for disciplinary matters in that: (a) the plaintiffs were adequately informed of the charges against them (b) plaintiff Barry was present when the defendants gave evidence and had the opportunity to challenge them; (c) plaintiff Rogers did not give evidence due to his own unreasonable conduct and (d) that in bringing their solicitor to the adjourned meeting, the plaintiffs were in breach of rule 140 (a) and it was the solicitor’s insistence on participating that caused the adjournment on that occasion.
2. In plaintiff Barry‘s case it transpired that he was not a member of any GAA club and therefore could not, in effect, be suspended. He therefore supplied a service, as a third party to the County Board. The football season was over and he had been paid his expenses and therefore, his contract was completed and he had no legal relationship with the club. The club was not obliged to show fair procedures to a stranger. However, as he was not a member of a GAA club the court made a declaration that the County Board’s attempt to suspend him had no effect.
3. Plaintiff Rogers case was different as he was a member of a GAA club and as such he was entitled to fair procedures. Plaintiff Rogers failure to give evidence or call witnesses was largely due to his own fault. However the court has ruled that fair procedures were not breached and accordingly his case failed as there was no breach of contract.
Reporter: BDD.
Judgment of His Honour Judge Bryan McMahon delivered on 13th of April, 2005 at Naas Circuit Court.
I. Introduction.
Few spectators who gathered on the 19& of July, 2003, at Nenagh to watch the All-Ireland Junior Football Semi-final realized the small drama that was being played out in the Meath dressing-room moments before the throw-in. As a result of what happened on that occasion the plaintiffs here have brought these proceedings.
By letter dated 6th November, 2003, the plaintiffs were officially notified that they were suspended by the Meath County Board, for 48 and 96 weeks respectively. The decision followed an investigation and a recommendation by a Special Investigation Committee into allegations regarding incidents which came to a head in the players’ dressing-room immediately before the All-Ireland Junior Football championship in Nenagh, on Saturday 19th July, 2003. The suspensions, they were informed, were made under Rule 140 of the Official Guide, 2001.
An appeal by the plaintiffs to the Leinster Council under rule 151 of the Official Guide of the Association was unsuccessful.
The plaintiffs commenced the present proceedings by way of separate Equity Civil Bills both dated 19th May, 2004. The defendants in both actions were the Chairman and Secretary of the Meath County Board and the Chairman of the Leinster County Board sued in their official capacities. A full defence was filed in both cases.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants acted in breach of express or implied terms of contract, in failing to conduct the disciplinary proceedings in a manner that was fair and in compliance with the requirements of natural and constitutional justice. They specified particulars where they alleged the proceedings were deficient and further claimed that the proceedings were also in breach of the Association’s own rules and by-laws.
The plaintiffs claimed damages for breach of contract and various declarations and other orders.
The case was heard over two days in March 2005, in Trim, County Meath.
II.The facts.
Background.
It was accepted by the defendants that Mr. Barry was appointed manager and that Mr. Rogers was appointed selector and physical therapist of the Meath Junior Football team for the season 2002- 2003. Mr. Rogers was to receive Eur60 for every team training session he attended. Mr. Barry alleged that he was to receive Eurl,400 for his role, but the defendants denied this, alleging that Mr. Barry was to be paid his expenses only, which in the event amounted Eur1400 for the season. These agreements were not in writing, but the appointments were not denied by the defendants. Although all the exact terms may not have been established I accept that there were agreements between the plaintiffs and
defendants relating to the training of the Meath County Junior Team for that season and that in so far as the plaintiffs were members of their respective clubs, the rules of the Association formed part of the terms of these agreements.
As the season progressed a problem arose when some players, including one Gary Rogers, a son of one of the plaintiffs, were named in the panel, when according to the County Board he was ineligible under the rules of the Association as not having played for his club. To be eligible to be selected for the county team, a player had to be registered and available in the first instance for his club. The decision of the County Board was made known to the plaintiffs in their capacities as manager and selector. It was alleged by the defendants that an undertaking was given by the plaintiffs that Gary Rodgers would not be named on the panel for the All-Ireland Semi-Final in Nenagh, on 19th July, and that his name would not appear on the official programme. It appears that Gary Rodgers was also a talented soccer prayer and played for Dundalk United, a commitment that made it impossible for him to play for his Gaelic football club at the same time, but left him with sufficient time to participate in the County Junior Team’s training programme.
To ensure that only players eligible would take the field in Nenagh on 19th July, the first and second named defendants attended in the dressing-room with the official jerseys shortly before the game was due to commence. They proceeded to distribute the jerseys, refusing to give jerseys to players who were ineligible in their view as not having played for their clubs, including Gary Rogers. It was very close to kick-off and the manager was
trying to prepare his team. For him and his selectors the distraction was unhelpful. Tension began to mount. Voices were raised and abusive language was directed towards the first and second named defendants. A bag of jerseys was pulled from the first defendant’s hand and he fell to the ground. The first and second defendants alleged that Mr. Rogers had pushed him; Mr. Rogers denied this; Mr. Barry said he did not see who pushed the Chairman to the ground as he had his back turned at the time, but he did admit directing abusive language towards the first defendant claiming, however, it was not used with malice. There were, of course, several other witnesses in the dressing room at the time.
It was to investigate these allegations that the Special Investigations Committee was set up. A letter was sent to the plaintiffs on the 26th of August, 2003 and the plaintiffs were asked to attend a meeting on 1st September. This was rescheduled for 4th September. The plaintiffs requested a further postponement and to accommodate them the defendants fixed the first meeting for 15th September. This meeting had to be adjourned and it re-convened on the 29th of September when due to circumstances which will be clarified later, it was adjourned once more to the later date of October 4th. The Special Investigation Committee made its recommendation on that day and this report eventually led to the suspensions by the County Board.
This court is not concerned with revisiting the factual findings in this regard. The plaintiffs claim that the procedures were unfair and were not properly applied and that this was in breach of their contractual terms. The Court, therefore, is only concerned with
examining the procedures established by the G.A.A. in respect of disciplinary hearings to see if they represent an acceptable standard and to see if the rules and regulations were followed and properly applied in this case.
The plaintiffs in these proceedings are suing for breach of contract and for determinations that decisions of the Meath County...
To continue reading
Request your trial