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.