High Court of Ireland Decisions

1. By A Notice of Motion dated the 28th day of June 2000 the Plaintiffs seek the following reliefs pending the determination of the proceedings in this action, namely;-

2. I shall first deal with the Plaintiffs’ claim for mandatory relief. The matter at issue in these proceedings is stated on Affidavit by Mr. J. Boyle Honorary Secretary of the Junior Section of the Leinster Branch of the Irish Rugby Football Union to have been referred by him to the Leinster Branch Junior Committee pursuant to regulation 4.1.1 of the Leinster Branch Competition Regulations governing protests, objections and appeals, (hereinafter referred to as “the regulations” ). It is further stated by Mr. Boyle on Affidavit that at its meeting on the 17th day of January 2000 the Junior Committee decided pursuant to regulation 4.1.3 of the regulations to refer the matter to the Competitions Committee. Regulation 4.1.5 requires the Competitions Committee to hold a full hearing. It is agreed by both sides in this dispute that this was done on the 20th day of January 2000. To comply with regulation 4.1.6, by letter dated the 21st day of January 2000 Mr. Boyle wrote as follows to Mr. Aidan O’Beirne, Honorary Secretary Tullamore Rugby Football Club setting out the decision of the Competitions Committee:-

3. I refer to previous correspondence and to the above objection received from Ashbourne RFC. The Competitions Committee considered the matter at its meeting on the 20th January 2000 and decided as follows:-

4. The Ashbourne Rugby Football Club objection is dated the 17th day of January 2000, and from its face appears to have been sent to Mr. Boyle by electronic transmission on the same day. The writer Mr. Bill Duggan the Honorary Secretary Ashbourne Rugby Football Club states inter alia as follows: “Reference: ACC Division 1 relegation issue-objection.

5. The objection of Railway Union Rugby Football Club is dated the 18th of January 2000 and is addressed by Mr. James V. Carr, Honorary Fixtures Secretary (and as may be seen from a subsequent objection made on the 19th of January 2000), Acting Honorary Secretary of Railway Union Rugby Football Club, to Mr. Boyle and is as follows:-

6. It is clear that both these clubs were contending that a penalty over and above the points conceded to Enniscorty should be imposed on Tullamore Rugby Football Club because of that clubs failure to play its rearranged match against Enniscorthy Rugby Football Club at Enniscorthy on the 19th of December 1999.

7. Having regard to the terms of the letter of the 21st of January 2000 from Mr. Boyle to Mr. O’Beirne, (referred to above), it seems that the objections from Railway Union Rugby Football Club dated the 18th of January 2000 were not before the Competitions Committee at its meeting on the 20th of January 2000. However, at paragraph 21 of his Affidavit sworn herein on behalf of the Defendants on the 28th of July 2000 Mr. Boyle has sworn that the Competitions Committee met on the 20th of January 2000 to examine:-

8. It also appears at paragraph 22 of the said Affidavit of Mr. Boyle, and this is conceded by Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs, that Tullamore Rugby Football Club, Ashbourne Rugby Football Club and Railway Union Rugby Football Club were permitted to and did make submissions to the Competitions Committee but separately and not in the presence of each other. By a letter dated the 21st of January 2000 addressed to Mr. O’Beirne by Mr. Boyle it is stated as follows:-

9. This objection of the 19th of January 2000 from Railway Union Rugby Football Club, while referring to the Enniscorthy RFC -v- Tullamore RFC non-fixture, principally deals with matters of fact of which are not relevant to these proceedings.

10. Regulation 6.2 of the regulations provides:-

11. By a letter dated the 23rd of January 2000 to Mr A Heffernan Hon. Sec. Leinster Branch Irish Rugby Football Union, Mr Aidan O’Beirne Hon. Sec. Tullamore Rugby Football Club wrote as follows, (the Court infers in compliance with regulations 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, of the regulations) namely:-

12. In my judgment it is important to set out in full the terms of regulation 6.3 of the Regulations which govern the conduct of such appeals and are as follows:-

13. Tullamore Rugby Football Club was advised that its appeal would be heard at 8.30 p.m. on the 25th of January 2000. Since no objection is taken in these proceedings I assume that the provision of regulation 6.3.1 as to a minimum of 48 hours advanced notice was complied with or that Tullamore Rugby Football Club agreed to shorter notice. By a telefax transmission dated the 25th of January 2000 from Mr. O’Beirne to Mr. Heffernan, Tullamore Rugby Football Club sought clarification of the following matters:-

14. From the Affidavits filed on the behalf of the Plaintiffs and on behalf of the Defendants it does not appear that any written reply was received to this communication. Mr. Tom Maloney at paragraph 23 of his Affidavit filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs on the 26th of June 2000 avers that Tullamore Rugby Football Club was told, “that whilst it could bring witnesses, they could only be called if the committee wanted to hear them” and “that while a legal representative could be brought it was frowned upon”.

15. It is further sworn by Mr. Maloney at paragraph 23 of his said Affidavit that at the hearing on the 25th of January 2000 Tullamore Rugby Football Club was represented by Mr. Raymond Mahon, a club member and also a practising solicitor and by Mr. Maloney himself, a member of the executive committee of the club and the club president. In the same paragraph he also affers that written statements from three witnesses were brought to the meeting and handed to the Appeals Committee. He complains in the same paragraph that the Tullamore Rugby Football Club representatives were not permitted, “to hear the evidence of the other parties”.

16. What occurred at this hearing of the Appeals Committee on the 25th of January 2000 is far from clear. At paragraph 27 of his Affidavit to which I have already referred, Mr. Boyle affers that, “it was decided at that meeting that the hearing of the appeal should be postponed until the 8th of February 2000”. A letter dated the 7th of February 2000 was sent, - I infer by way of telefax transmission by reason of the pressure of time, - to Mr. Heffernan by Mr. O’Beirne in the following terms:-

17. By a letter dated the 10th of February 2000 Mr. Heffernan advised Mr. O’Beirne in the following terms:-

18. At paragraph 24 of his Affidavit to which I have already referred, Mr. Maloney avers as follows:-

19. Whatever the reason it is accepted by Mr. Maloney that a full rehearing of the matter in fact took place on the second occasion which was on the 15th of February at which representatives of Tullamore Rugby Club attended and did not object to or protest at what was taking place. It is not submitted to this Court by the Plaintiffs’ that the Appeals Committee based its decision on information which was not or not properly obtained during the hearing before it on the 15th of February 2000 or that the three members of the Appeals Committee who were present at both hearings were or might be feared by a reasonable person to have been influenced or biased as a result of what took place at the first hearing and consequently were not capable of fairly and independently considering the Appeal on the 15th of February 2000.

20. By a letter dated the 16th of February 2000, (received on the 17th of February 2000), Mr. Heffernan advised Mr. O’Beirne of the outcome of the appeal in the following terms:-

21. The Plaintiffs’ in these proceedings contend that once the objections by Ashbourne Rugby Football Club and Railway Union Football Club were held by the Appeals Committee to be invalid as not having been received by the Leinster branch of the Irish Rugby Football Union not later than three working days from midnight on the date of the event giving rise to the objections as required by regulation 5.1, that the decision of the Competition’s Committee should have been reversed and there was no other issue left to be determined by the Appeals Committee.

22. In support of their contention the Plaintiffs’ point out that following the request by Mr. Boyle in his letter of the 21st of December 1999 to Mr. Tom Ganley then Honorary Secretary of Tullamore Rugby Club for an explanation as to the circumstances in which Tullamore Rugby Football failed to fulfil it’s obligation to play Enniscorthy Rugby Football Club as rearranged on the 19th of December 1999 and their reply dated the 30th of December 1999 providing a detailed explanation an apology and conceding the match and points to Enniscorthy Football Club they were not informed nor were they ever aware that Mr. Boyle as Administrator had sought a decision of the Junior Committee as the Relevant Committee and that the Junior Committee had sought a ruling of the Competitions Committee as to whether sanctions or penalties should be imposed on Tullamore Rugby Football Club in accordance with regulation 7.2 of the regulations arising from it’s failure to play the match.

23. They submit that the formal notification of the hearing before the Competition’s Committee which is contained in a letter dated the 18th of January 2000 from Mr. Boyle to Mr. O’Beirne is headed, “Re Objection Leinster League Division 1”, and continues as follows;

24. It is to be reasonably inferred from the Affidavit evidence hereinbefore set out that the Ashbourne objection if not the Railway Union objection was before the Leinster Branch at this time. The Plaintiff’s further point out that the formal notification of the decision of the Competition’s Committee is headed , Objection Received from Ashbourne dated 17th Jan 00.

25. The Plaintiff’s advert to the fact that the formal notification to them by letter dated the 21st of the January 2000 of the refusal by the competition’s committee to uphold the second objection of Railway Union Rugby Club dated the 19th of January 00, (the facts of which are not relevant to these proceedings), is headed, “Re: Objection received from Railway Union dated 19th of January 2000.” They point out that in Mr. O’Beirne’s letter to Mr. Heffernan dated the 25th of January 2000 one of the matters in respect of which they sought clarification was, “what clubs will be present at the meeting”, (of the Appeals Committee on the 25th of January 2000). They point to their Notice of Appeal to the Appeals Committee which is in the following terms;

26. At paragraph 19 of his Affidavit sworn on the 28th of July 2000 on behalf of the Defendant’s Mr. Boyle avers that before the objections of Ashbourne Rugby Football Club and Railway Union Rugby Football Club were received, he had decided to refer the matter to the Junior Committee of which he is a member. He also avers at paragraphs 20 and 21 of his said Affidavit that the Junior Committee and the Competitions Committee at their meetings had before them the above mentioned correspondence between Tullamore Rugby Football Club and himself. At paragraph 21 of his said Affidavit he avers that the Competition’s Committee met on the 20th of January 2000 to examine;-

27. No documents records or minutes of any sort are exhibited by Mr. Boyle in his Affidavit in support of these averments. It is clear from the terms of paragraph 22 of his said Affidavit that the Junior Committee, if in fact a complainant, did not make submissions to the Competitions Committee. At paragraph 26 of the said Affidavit Mr. Boyle avers as follows;-

28. The only document offered in support of this contention is the letter of the 16th of February 2000 from Mr. Heffernan to Mr. O’Beirne notifying Tullamore Rugby Football Club of the decision of the Appeals Committee which contains the following sentence;

29. In my judgment it is clear from the foregoing that a serious and fair, incontradistinction to frivolous or vexatious, bona fide issue exists to be tried between the parties at the hearing of this action as to whether apart from the objections by Ashbourne Rugby Football Club and Railway Union Football Club there was another complaint properly before the Appeals Committee in respect of which it made a decision and if so, whether fair procedures were adopted by the Appeals Committee in the determination of such other complaint. However, it is also my judgment that the strength of the Plaintiff’s case falls short of the sort of reasonable likelihood of success, which the Court requires before if feels entitled to grant mandatory relief at an interlocutory stage in proceedings.

30. The Plaintiff’s claim in the alternative that they were not afforded fair procedures and that the Appeals Committee acted in breach of contract and failed to observe the principles of natural and constitutional justice in refusing to permit the representatives of Tullamore Rugby Football Club to be present when either evidence was given or submissions were made by or on behalf of Ashbourne Rugby Football Club and Railway Union Rugby Football Club to the Appeals Committee and in the refusal by the Appeals Committee to permit representatives of Tullamore Rugby Football Club to question the witnesses or representatives of the other two clubs. It will be remembered that regulation 6.3.4 of the Regulations provides that;

31. It is alleged by Mr. Maloney at paragraph 23 of his Affidavit sworn on behalf of the Plaintiff’s on the 26th of June 2000 that, “Tullamore was denied permission to hear the evidence of the other parties and was told that whilst it could bring witnesses, they would only be called if the committee wanted to hear them”.

32. It is clear from the same paragraph of Mr. Maloney’s Affidavit that Tullamore Rugby Football Club did not in fact seek to call oral evidence from witnesses before the Appeals Committee and that written statements from three witnesses were brought to the meeting by Tullamore Rugby Football Club and were received by the Appeals Committee.

33. Accordingly this statement has regards the calling of witnesses, which is clearly contrary to the previsions of regulation 6.3.2 may, in my judgment only be regarded by this Court as no more than some informal misinformation given by some unnamed person but which was not in any way a ruling by the Appeals Committee, which as I have already pointed out, had no cause in the events which occurred to make a ruling on the calling of witnesses.

34. As to the question of fair procedures, breach of contract and failure to observe the principles of Natural and Constitutional Justice, in my judgment these claims would not be considered by the Court at the hearing of this action as the Appeals Committee did not consider the objections made by Ashbourne Rugby Football Club and Railway Union Football Club on their merits but merely dismissed the objections as being out of time and so invalid. Accordingly any determination of these issues would be a purely theoretical and academic exercise on the part of the Court and of no real benefit to the Plaintiffs . The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it will not and that other Courts should not entertain such applications.

35. Finally, the Plaintiffs’ further claim in the alternative that the decision of the Appeals Committee to uphold the decision of the Competitions Committee to deduct two league points from Tullamore Rugby Football Club and to impose a fine of £200.00 was, “perverse having regard to the evidence”. The loss of these two league points resulted in Tullamore Rugby Football Club being relegated to Division II of the ACC Bank Leinster League in lieu of Ashbourne Rugby Football Club with whom at the completion of the final round of matches on the 16th of January 2000 it was otherwise level on league points but over which it had the advantage of a superior points difference.

36. If the Court has jurisdiction to set aside a decision of a committee of a consentual and contractually constituted sports organisation, not on the ground that the procedures whereby the decision was reached were unfair and did not comply with the principals of natural and constitutional justice, but on the basis that the decision itself was, “perverse” having regard to the evidence. Such jurisdiction, in my judgment, would only be exercised in an extremely limited number of clear and very serious cases for example where the Court could clearly determine that the decision was “wholly irrational”. This was held to be the position in the case of Bolger -v- Osborne and Others (2000) 1ILRM 250 at 263 where Macken, J., found that as no evidence at all was offered against the Plaintiff the finding against him was, “wholly irrational” and as such was a breach of the contract existing between the parties. However, the Court in my judgment, cannot be invited to review the evidence relating to a particular incident in the course of a sports competition and to substitute its views as to the appropriateness or otherwise of a particular decision of or penalty imposed by the relevant Committees established by contractual agreement for that very purpose by the members of that particular sports organisation.

37. Apart from this question of jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs’ in this instance would first have to convince the Court to look behind the contractual agreement enshrined in the provisions of Regulation 6.3.6 of the Regulations which provide that the decision of the Appeals Committee is final and binding on all parties. Whether the Plaintiffs’ are using the term “perverse” in its usual jury trial appeal definition of, “altogether against the evidence”, or in a quasi judicial review sense of, “unreasonable”, or in a constitutional justice sense of, “lacking proportionality”, in my judgment, on the Affidavit evidence now before the Court the Plaintiffs would fail to discharge the very heavy burden of proof which any of these allegations must necessarily impose upon them.

38. For the reasons which I have given I do not consider the Plaintiffs to have established that there is a serious and fair bona fide question to be tried as regards any of the alternative grounds of claim. Accordingly, the Court must refuse to make a mandatory order requiring the Defendant to rehold the draw for Division 1 of the ACC Bank Leinster League for the 2000/2001 Season on the basis of Tullamore Rugby Football Club remaining in Division 1.

39. In my judgment it cannot be disputed by the Plaintiffs that whether rightly or wrongly, since at latest the 17th of February 2000, when the decision of the Appeals Committee was received by the Club, Tullamore Rugby Football Club has been relegated from Division 1 to Division 2 of the ACC Bank Leinster League for the 2000/2001 Season. In these circumstances, it is not open to the Plaintiffs to seek a prohibitory order restraining the Defendants from relegating Tullamore Rugby Football Club from Division 1 to Division 2 of the ACC Bank Leinster League. On the Affidavit evidence now before the Court, in my judgment, apart from the payment of the £200.00 fine to which no argument was addressed at the hearing of this motion, what the Plaintiffs are in fact seeking by claiming:-

40. The remaining relief's sought by the Plaintiffs in this motion may be set out as follows:-

41. Having refused an Order pending the final determination of these proceedings directing the Defendants to reinstate Tullamore Rugby Football Club to Division 1 status and further having refused to order a reholding of the Draw for Division 1 of the ACC Bank Leinster League for the 2000/2001 Season, the Court is unable to envisage what material additional or independent harm or injury might be suffered by Tullamore Rugby Football Club by reason of the payment of the £200.00 fine or by the publication of the Leinster Rugby Official Handbook for the 2000/2001 Season, for which it, “may not be possible to compensate, (the Club) fairly or properly by an award of damages”. In my judgment the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that any irreparable harm would be done to Tullamore Rugby Football Club by either the payment of the £200.00 or the publication of the Leinster Rugby Official Handbook for the 2000/2001 Season.

42. In considering the balance of convenience, or the balance of justice as in my judgment it should be described, between the parties in order to determine whether to grant or to withhold injunctive relief pending the final determination of these proceedings the Court must be mindful that to make an Order prohibiting the Defendants from publishing the Leinster Rugby Official Handbook for the 2000/2001 Season, or taking any other steps or making any other preparations for the organisation or administration of the ACC Bank Leinster League for the 2000/2001 Season, would be to make an Order nullifying the decision of the Court refusing the mandatory relief sought by the Plaintiffs in this motion, and having the effect of affording to the Plaintiffs the self same relief by another route. In my judgment the alleged harm or rather anticipated harm detailed at paragraphs 28 and 29 of the Affidavit of Mr. Maloney sworn on behalf of the Plaintiffs on the 26th of June 2000, is referable principally if not exclusively to the relegation of the Club from Division 1 to Division 2 of the ACC Bank Leinster League.

43. In case I am incorrect in this and some extra harm or injury will be occasioned to Tullamore Rugby Football Club by the publication of the Leinster Rugby Official Handbook for the 2000/2001 Season and by the organising and playing of the individual matches in accordance with the Rules and with the Draw (at which the parties agree a representative or representatives of Tullamore Rugby Football Club was or were present), in my judgment the injury and harm to the Leinster Branch of the Irish Rugby Football Union in not being able to do these things pending the conclusion of this case must be far greater. If the Leinster Branch of the IRFU cannot until after the determination of these proceedings take any steps or make any preparations for the organisation or administration of the ACC Bank Leinster League for the 2000/2001 Season, there is a clear inference to be drawn from the Affidavit evidence before the Court that this premier competition could not be played at all in the 2000/2001 Season. Accordingly, if Tullamore Rugby Football Club should be granted the Orders sought the working out of those same Orders would result in that Club being deprived of the very benefits which this Motion and those Orders were intended to secure.

44. It is clear from the Affidavit evidence now before the Court that the inconvenience and potential injury and damage to the Leinster Branch of the IRFU and to the 39 other Clubs excluding Tullamore Rugby Football Club, involved in the ACC Bank Leinster League, of that competition not being played in the 2000/2001 Season must transcend by a very large factor any inconvenience or potential loss to Tullamore Rugby Football Club.

45. If the Leinster Rugby Official Handbook for the season 2000/2001 follows the same format as the 1999/2000 publication, the Plaintiffs complaint could only relate to those pages setting out the League Section insofar as it refers to the ACC Bank Leinster League and the pages containing the Fixtures Section insofar as it covers the same topic, about 14 pages in all out of a booklet of 208 pages. In my judgment any delay in the publication of this clearly essential handbook which deals with a whole variety of topics both informative and regulatory relating to the playing of rugby football in Leinster, would result in a degree of inconvenience to the Leinster branch of the IRFU, its large number of committees, officers and representatives, its 68 affiliated clubs not including Tullamore Rugby Football Club, their committees officers and playing members, the association of referees, (Leinster branch), and the 82 affiliated schools and colleges, altogether disproportional to any inconvenience which might be suffered by Tullamore Rugby Football Club pending the determination of these proceedings. In my judgment, it is clear from the Affidavit evidence now before the Court, that the publication of the Leinster Rugby Official Handbook would not result in the dissemination of information potentially damaging to Tullamore Rugby Football Club, - should that information ultimately be held to be incorrect or premature, - to any materially larger or wider number of persons over and above those already aware of the decision of the appeals committee and the consequent relegation of Tullamore Rugby Football Club from Division One to Division Two of the ACC Bank Leinster League.

46. If Tullamore Rugby Football Club pending the final determination of these proceedings should suffer any of the losses set out at paragraphs 28 and 29 of the Affidavit of Mr. Moloney to which I have already referred, in my judgment those losses can readily be calculated in monetary terms and subject to the ordinary rules of evidence made good by an award of damages against the Defendants who are accepted to be a sufficient mark. However, I want to emphasise that in my judgment there could be little or no real proximate and causal connection between these alleged or anticipated losses and the publication of the Leinster Rugby Official Handbook for the 2000/2001 Season, the payment of a fine of £200.00 or preparations for the organisation and administration of the ACC Bank Leinster League. The Court in my judgment may properly infer from the Affidavit evidence now before it, in particular from paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Affidavit of Mr. Boyle sworn on behalf of the Defendants on the 22nd of August 2000, that very considerable administrative and publication costs would be incurred by the Leinster Branch of the Irish Rugby Football Union if the Leinster Rugby Official Handbook cannot be printed and published in the form reflecting the Leinster League Divisions and Match Fixtures notified to all the 40 participating clubs as far back as the 22nd of May 2000, and if the playing of the ACC Bank Leinster League has to be cancelled or reorganised.

47. In the light of the foregoing I have no doubt but that the balance of convenience lies in the Court refusing rather than granting the remaining three reliefs claimed by the Plaintiffs.

48. Halsbury, Laws of England 4th Edition Volume 24 paragraphs 848; 852; 861 and 862.

49. Keane. “Equity Law of Trusts in the Republic of Ireland” paragraph 15.33.