LOVELL'S BIG MISTAKE : A CAUTIONARY TALE .....( Article by Professor Hu Chi Ku Chi )

If you ever have the misfortune of being slung out of your club then jumping the gun and going straight to court ( to seek a declaration that the decision should be aside as null and void ) may be a very big and costly mistake. 
The following case illustrates this point all too clearly :

Lovell v Pembrokeshire County Cricket Club

Reference [2003] ISLR, SLR-39 
Court Haverfordwest County Court

Judge Neuberger J

Date of Judgment 1 May 2002

---

Summary

Sports law – Amateur sport – Rules as a contract – Incorporation of terms – Breach of natural justice – Exhaustion of domestic procedures – Declaratory relief

---

Facts

Mr Lovell (‘L’) was a cricketer playing for a club affiliated to Pembrokeshire County Cricket Club (‘D’) in the Pembrokeshire County Cricket League. During a match in August 2001, L claims that he was verbally abused. At one point, when L was at the crease, he claimed that a rival player threw the ball at the stumps when the ball was plainly dead. This led to heated arguments at the time and subsequent formal complaints, lodged with the League, that L had sworn at rival players and the umpire and had manhandled a rival player. L was charged with misconduct. At the hearing L and each of the witnesses were only permitted to attend while they were giving evidence. Only the members of the Disciplinary Committee were permitted to ask questions. L was found guilty and debarred from playing for four months (including two months suspended). L did not pursue an appeal after being told that the same procedure would be used. He sought a declaration that the decision was null and void.

---

Issue

(1) Did L have a right in contract (or on some other private law basis) to enforce D’s disciplinary procedures against D?
(2) If there was a contract, were its terms as regards disciplinary procedures breached? (3) If L was successful so far, should he be refused declaratory relief? (4) Should L be refused relief due to his failure to exhaust the appeal procedures?

---

Held

Dismissing the action: (1) D’s disciplinary procedures were contractually enforceable. It is undesirable to interfere in amateur sport, but where a league has detailed rules, with teeth, including disciplinary procedures, and is organised under the auspices of a rule-making body (such as D) then the rules will be legally enforceable, although the Court should be careful before granting any relief. (2) D was in breach of L’s rights. The rules provided that a player charged has a right to attend the hearing, entailing a right to attend the whole hearing. D also presented L with evidence against him on the door of the court, and denied him the right to make submissions in mitigation. (3) But for the issues relating to appeal, L would have been granted the relief sought. (4) It would be inappropriate to grant relief given L’s failure to exhaust the appeal procedures, and the fact that an order for a re-hearing would place L in a worse situation than the appeal offered by D.

---

Comment

The Court expressed a reluctance to “go poking its nose into amateur cricket”, but given the detail of the rules, and the sanctions they contained, held that these rules were legally enforceable. From an observer’s point of view it is difficult to ascertain what Mr Lovell thought he would gain from these proceedings: during negotiations the Defendant had offered him an appeal heard by a panel with a majority of independent members and an independent chair, meaning that, as the Judge observed, what they were offering was better than the re-hearing that the Court could offer him.

Clearly , the club committee were guilty of making procedural mistakes , which suggested that the disciplinary process was possibly flawed , and that Lovell may have been wrongfully suspended. Certainly he had good grounds to challenge the decision, but unfortunately for Lovell the committee as required by the club's Constitution did offer him a right of appeal to an independent and impartial body. This offer he chose to ignore. Not surprisingly the judge viewed his failure to accept this option as a major oversight on Lovell's part.
The courts see themselves as a final option , a last resort , when all other avenues to resolve the dispute in a fair and proper way have been explored and exhausted. Quite rightly , courts do not wish to interfere with the affairs of clubs and societies . Court time is extremely valuable and too precious to waste on matters , which often come down to personal feuds and vendettas. Nevertheless , if a real injustice has taken place despite the best efforts of both parties to settle the dispute out of court , then judges may well feel obliged to make a ruling.
And so the moral of this case can be summed up as follows : woe betide the party who comes to court having flatly refused to consider a sensible and available option , which could  (and should have ) resolved the dispute in a quick , fair , expedient and cost effective way.