Seriously..have you been to Canberra..!!!

I assumed English law, but did not know about any reciprocal enforcement mechansism. That would strengthen our chances of success then.

Would a UK court grant a money judgment? Knowing how unready they seem to be generally (from my understanding anyway) to make big awards against employees in such actions? presumably we are back to the Bulls proving the scale of their losses, and to there being no counterclaim?

Messy??

And therein lies the crux of the matter.

Both "legal" standpoints of respective parties will feel they have a strong case, should it get to that juncture; much as any defence team would hope to have. Legal cases are taken on board to earn solicitors money rather than necessarily play moral guardian to the nations problems and least of all guarantee any successful outcome.

But it is highly unlikely to get to that point. I would like nothing more than to see the club be recompensed for Orford leaving. However as I have maintained, any NRL club willing to pay a transfer fee is increasingly rare, albeit the lack of halves may put us in a stronger position. Worse case scenario for the club is we release him and save the large annual salary he was "earning".

I'm not sure we are in a position to go legal, nor will we lose out even if we didn't.

I don't think there's a problem with the principle of the case, but with the measure of damages which you could claim, which is restricted to your "loss". And that is not a lot, unless you are (for example) obliged to pay a big signing on fee for a replacement, or something like that.

In practice the fact that he can't play unless we release him is a more potent weapon. Though whether if we do not agree the release, we then have to keep paying him is probably a far trixier issue.


What people seem to always overlook is that in the vast majority of legal cases, as well as being a winner, there will correspondingly be a loser. As long as the loser's lawyers properly and fully advise on the chances of success, but the client says go ahead, then why shouldn't they be paid? (unless acting no-win, no-fee in which case they won't be paid). If however they mis-advise on the merits "to get the case on board to earn solicitors money" then that won't work, as they themselves would end up being sued.

I would doubt very much that Orford's lawyers if he appointed some would feel he had a strong case. Seems hard to see he has any case at all, and that if we chose to take it on, the only question is how much does he owe? Having said which, we wouldn't, I think, sue him except perhaps as a very last resort, if all other avenues fail.


Indeed. There are many factors to consider but they all militate against heading for the courts.

I think this thread has gone off the rails enough times now.