Has he relapsed again? I decided to ignore him once I decided I had done my bit on here for Care in the Communuity. Seems I did right.

In an attempt to get back on thread, and looking at those reports about Oz Union being interested, the worry there would be that Bulls' only redress then would be against the player, for breach of contract. There being no reciprocal agreements or understandings with the ARU. As Bulliac says, would the club seek to fight a battle in the Aussie courts? Since enforcing a ruling handed down bu the English courts might be difficult? Hmm. You'd hope the Union club would decide to settle some form of "release fee" to buy certainty, but no guarantees. That said, it does seem they are very short of halves in the NRL, and any release fee should not count on the cap there.

The difficulty remains in the wording of Orford and his agent. That being, they have "requested a release". That in any court would be difficult to prove that he is "refusing" to play, meet his training obligations or ever play for the club again. his continued dialogue with the club (according to them) is pretty clever on his part because he simply isn't walking away as may have been perceived the case had he not spoken to his "employers". Factor in the club responding that they would be willing subject to an appropriate level of compensation and any court is going to find that incredidly difficult to deal with. As I've said, it's a ing contest and not one either side will wish to engage in when it comes to the crunch.

Battle of minds, is what the situation realistically is.

Indeed. By keeping his mouth shut, and letting the media do the job for him, he could no doubt still argue that he would have returned for pre-season had the club not given him dispensation. But we none of us know exactly what was said, by whom to whom and when, so we are all really still speculating. Guess ultimately it will all hinge on how important (if at all) a prompt closure will be to Orford - and to his prospective next employer?

The contract will most certainly define what laws and jurisdiction applies. I'd bet any money it is English law.

The Bulls would need to obtain a money judgment against Orford first. If they did, then the methods available to enforce it in Australia are much the same as here, they'd only need to register it in Aus under the foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933.

An attachment of earnings order would be nice.

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.