You say nobody would care and yet, one of the most vocal and prominent posters tells us that the matter was never decided in court ??

to be fair to FA, that was a preliminary judgement that the clause itself was legal rather than the decision that Harris had broken his contract and that the Bulls had induced him to do so.

If you look at the date of that judgement it was made in 2005, the actual settlement wasnt made until 2008,

So it was tested in court that the clauses mentioned were valid and legal, it was never tested in court that Bradford had induced Harris to break his contract, nor that Harris broke his contract (though it was always likely Leeds would win, there was substantive opinion it may have been somewhat a pyrrhic victory and they wouldnt have got a whole lot of money)

The full quote from FA:



From the document you link to:



I've helpfully highlighted the bits you should have read before jumping in and trying to look clever.

I think perhaps that's starting to count angels on pin heads.

Why do you think I had not read the whole document - I have, some time ago in fact and rather than accuse me of "trying to look clever" perhaps you might like to consider what FA said before the piece you quoted

"But if Harris was under contract to Leeds, then potentially that would be a liability running into millions of pounds."

Followed by

"The point was never decided in court......."

Now as I understand it (and I fully accept that FA is a lawyer & I'm not), Bradford believed that Clause 5 was a restraint of trade and on that basis proceeded to employ Mr Harris.

It WAS then tested in court, unless you are saying that England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) isn't a court and Mr Justice Grey gave his decision, amongst others, that Clause 5 in the contract was not a restraint of trade. I guess that was what then convinced the Bradford board that there was no point pursuing the matter further and they were going to have to pay up?

See Smokey's response above. Unless you think it took the Bradford board 3 years to read the judgement?

The preliminary hearing simply decided that there was a case to answer. The case itself was never heard in court.

I think perhaps we have to agree to differ.

You can differ if you choose but it's a matter of fact that the case was never heard in court.

A preliminary hearing is COURT. HTH

No because once the judgement had been given the Bulls realised they had no defence.

If your case is that an action is not a restraint of case and your defence is built around that and the judge then says SORRY but your action is a restraint of trade then your defence goes out of the window.

It is pretty much the same as a murder trial and you claim self defence. If self defence is thrown out then you know you are left trying to defend a case that is very much weakened.

I was going to correct all the mistakes in your screed, but as you have already been roundly humiliated more than enough by others, can I just offer you a bit of your own advice, i.e. perhaps YOU might like to consider what I said.

When I said "the point that was never decided in court" the point I was referring to was the bit you accidentally cut out "...the belief Leeds could do nothing".

Sorry, yes. My mistake. I forgot where I was for a moment. I figured in a discussion about whether there was a final decision in court that a one word lapse would fly by and context would be king. Silly me.

See my second post. 95% of these types of civil cases start off with both sides thinking they will win.

Then usually after a preliminary hearing or a court direction one side realises their arguement has just being weakened.

Consequently you then get the two sides messing around in a game of Brinksmanship to see who blinks first. The side who thinks they have the weakest case then try to get out of it as quickly as they can. Bradford messed around far too long and then realised they were going to get shafted so got out ASAP. Unlike the GIants legal team and management who right royally f****** up in the mason case.

They only settled because they knew they were going to lose the legal case. They lost the preliminary hearing in court and then it was pretty certain they would lose the whole legal case Unfortunately it took them three years to realise they were going to lose and that Leeds were not going to blink first.

Explain your use of "once". It suggests a temporal connection between the preliminary issue and the decision to settle. There wasn't one, the settlement came years later.

Explain why, if the "Bulls realised they had no defence", the board that was in place at that earlier date fought on. Explain how you overlooked that the board which decided to settle was actually a different board, and a long time down the track.



I [ithink[/i I understand what you meant to say, although the thought of a judge apologising for his decision did make me smile. You are very confused. Leeds had an option to re-employ Harris. That WAS a restraint of trade. But, the court held being a restraint of trade didn't make the option void, in the rather unique circumstances of the Harris case.

In fact the main thrust of the Bulls' case can be summarised as "Any breach by Harris would not concern us, as we didn't induce him to breach any contractual obligation he may have (none being admitted)". Or, "Nowt to do with us, guv".

The prelim issue was just a subtext, although a significant subtext since if it had gone the other way that would have ended the case in the Bulls and Harris's favour. They were clearly advised that it was worth taking this preliminary issue to hearing, on the basis that it presented a quicker and cheaper way, if they were found right, of quickly ending the litigation. No doubt the decision must have come as a blow. But as it was decided in Leeds' favour that just meant the MAIN case would have to trundle on. And so it trundled, until a completely different board for whatever reasons basically capitulated. But the Court never found against the Bulls on the main issues, and so we'll never know what the decision would have been.

Thanks for this. I never knew it worked like that.

Oh - just one thing. If that's how it works, then why didn't the then board try to get out of it as quickly as they could?

Or, indeed, as it happens, ever?




That really doesn't sound a very likely scenario, now does it? "Took them 3 years to realise ..." - even you must register that that's a dumb proposition; and that's even ignoring that the people doing the alleged realising weren't actually the same ones! Did they do a long-term mind meld, or something, you think?

We can all ascribe whatever speculative reasons we like for why they settled, because we will never know. Your speculation is just that. I could speculate that it had been made crystal to the Bulls that if it went to trial and they lost, then the club would be liquidated. Whereas if they backed down and settled then (a) huge saving on legal costs (b) discount on compo (c) payment by instalments over a number of years, instead of a Statutory Demand. I could speculate that therefore rather than risk the whole existence of the club on a winner-takes-all gamble the new board decided to bite the bullet and do the deal. I don't profess to know (the circumstances of the settlement were all subject to strict confidentiality clauses) but I would bet a lot of money that my pure speculation is one helluva lot nearer the mark than your speculation.

FA in long winded point i cannot be bothered to read.

I am wrong. Bradford won the case. They suffered no financial penalty. Bradford have no financial problems as a result of the Harris case.

In anteater world it is alright because he argues semantic points on a discussion board.

Meanwhile on planet earth the Bradford Bulls are up the creek and it really started off with the Harris case.

Just a point, whilst it may sound dumb for them to take 3 years to come to that conclusion, this is the board that many a Bradford fan have said lacked sense.

I'll concede the point it's unlikely, but in this case not impossible.

I work in a different world to the law, but I do hear some stories from my world were people are bang to rights yet appeal and appeal knowing they are in the wrong and despite judgements increasing any penalty laid down. But still they appeal and con themselves that they are in the right.

To anyone like yourself who actually wants to talk about the matter in hand, I have always said that I found it very hard to see how the Bulls could possibly be found to have induced the breach. Harris was represented by an agent and lawyers. It was at least as much in his interests to be sure he was free to do what he was proposing to do before he did it, and so it's not like he was some naive unrepresented youngster, seduced by the bright lights of Bradford and conned into ting on his old club. The Bulls would have had to be found to have induced the breach of a contract that they were told by Harris's advisers he either did not have or was definitely not bound by. The Bulls either relied on Harris's assertions, or even formed their own independent view of it, but where in all that is there "inducement" in the strict sense needed in a breach of contract allegation? So from my viewpoint I felt the Bulls looked to have a strong case and I know of nothing that happened to change that.

I am done with DG given he's crying, and I am not a bully; though maybe you could have a word in your fellow moderator's ear and point out he's starting to behave strangely again. I would, but he wouldn't take it from me.

Aardvark in I know better than the specialist lawyers and the judge in a court case where i have no real knowledge ofall the evidence shocker. Then you wonder why i ignore half the shiite you write.

If only the Bulls board had you as their legal advisor Bradford would have won the case, it would be Leeds who would be bankrupt and the Bulls who would be lording it all up.


You cannot make it up except in Aardvark world. Yopu should give up law and become a Sci Fi writer you could take over the role of Tery Pratchett. Just swap Discworld for Anteater world.

Rubbish. But I suspect you know that anyway.

The preliminary hearing was simply to determine whether or not a case could be brought against the Bulls at all. You have no idea what defence might or might not have been given in court because the Bulls ultimately chose not to take that route. The fact that it took them three years to decide on that course of action, during which time they spent considerable sums of money, strongly suggests that they did not immediately feel that they had no defence following the preliminary hearing.

Neither do you know what the defence was .

The point i made was about brinksmanship about who blinked first. At the end when it came to who thought they could win the Bulls or their legal team said, " we need to cut our losses we wont win". Hence they gave in and were stuck with damages and leagl fees. I would guess that if they had fought on that the legal fees could have doubled with the amount learned counsel charge for a hearing that might have lasted a few days.

That is why they gave in to cut their losses. The fact is that either their legal advice was poor or they were so desparate to play poker with the case that it dragged on for years and cost a lot more than it should have done.

If they had said to Leeds at the begining we are sorry can we give you £500k and leave it that it would probably have been accepted.

It was the same with the GIants and the Mason case. They were absolutely in the wrong on the basis of everything i read and were suitably punished in the tribunal. But they were so belligerent or had crap legal advice they went all the way and lost.
And i said at the time i was glad the Giants lost the case and they deserved to lose every penny it cost them.

I dont know how much it cost the Bulls in the end but it was a lot more than that. Maybe aardvark can tell us.

Indeed. because - and here's the important part so I'll type slowly - [iit was never tested in court.[/i

A big part of that delay is that another substantive point in the amount leeds could claim from Bradford was being heard in another case and a stay was put on the Bradford one.

So it seems another party were apparently 'as dumb' as Bradford and took the case all the way to the high court.

What people also seem to forget is the level of compensation. Even had Bradford lost the case, only an idiot would assume that Leeds would have been given the full amount claimed, and Leeds did in fact settle for a lower amount.

So whilst those looking to critics Bradford for this, it actually saved them money to fight the case than simply capitulate to leeds demands

Indeed. because - and here's the important part so I'll type slowly P A R T O F I T W A S T E S T E D I N C O U R T.

That is why they had a preliminary hearing to test the validity of one each parties key points on whether it was or not a restraint of trade. One side had the judge agree with them the other one did not hence some of it WAS heard in court.

assuming that the five learned counsel involved in the case were and their instructing solicitors were doing it all free of charge

I did. The point stands. What people thought the outcome would be has no bearing on whether a judgement was made. No judgement was made.

I had no point to make beyond that.