Legal Case: Wayne Rooney
Coursework Assignment: ULMS721 Football and the Law
Legal Review:
Proform Sports Management Ltd v Proactive Sports Management Ltd and another Minor – Contract – Necessaries – Footballer entering into agency agreement with claimant – Footballer being minor at time of agreement – Footballer giving notice of termination of agreement – Claimant alleging defendant inducing breach of contract – Defendant seeking summary judgment on ground that contract voidable – Whether contract falling within class enforceable against minor [2006] EWHC 2812 (Ch), (Transcript: Cater Walsh Reporting) 26 JULY 2006 T King QC for the Claimant V Joffe QC and D Casement for the Defendants Quinn Barrow; Halliwells LLP JUDGE HODGE QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court)
Student Number: 200665961 Course: MBA Football Industries Date: 17th May 2010 Word Count: 1500
Case Summary In a high court case involving footballer Wayne Rooney 's former management company, the claimant (Proform Sports Management Ltd), issued proceedings against the first defendant (Proactive Sports Management Ltd ) and second defendant (Mr Stretford) alleging that they had induced the player to breach his contract with his former agent. However, Judge Hodge considered the claimant 's case to have no real prospect of success and gave the summary judgement to the defendants. Case Facts The claimant (Proform) entered into an agreement with 15 year old footballing talent Wayne Rooney (D.O.B. 24/10/1985) -who was already involved with Everton FC- on December 12th 2000. The terms of the agreement, which were also signed by Mr. Rooney’s father, declared that Wayne Rooney was not permitted to negotiate playing contracts or appoint another agent to represent him. In May 2002, the claimant declined the opportunity to allow the second defendant (Mr Stretford) or on behalf of the first defendant (Proactive) to represent his client in any form. On June 27th 2002, a letter sent to the claimant signed by the player and his
Legal Review:
Proform Sports Management Ltd v Proactive Sports Management Ltd and another Minor – Contract – Necessaries – Footballer entering into agency agreement with claimant – Footballer being minor at time of agreement – Footballer giving notice of termination of agreement – Claimant alleging defendant inducing breach of contract – Defendant seeking summary judgment on ground that contract voidable – Whether contract falling within class enforceable against minor [2006] EWHC 2812 (Ch), (Transcript: Cater Walsh Reporting) 26 JULY 2006 T King QC for the Claimant V Joffe QC and D Casement for the Defendants Quinn Barrow; Halliwells LLP JUDGE HODGE QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court)
Student Number: 200665961 Course: MBA Football Industries Date: 17th May 2010 Word Count: 1500
Case Summary In a high court case involving footballer Wayne Rooney 's former management company, the claimant (Proform Sports Management Ltd), issued proceedings against the first defendant (Proactive Sports Management Ltd ) and second defendant (Mr Stretford) alleging that they had induced the player to breach his contract with his former agent. However, Judge Hodge considered the claimant 's case to have no real prospect of success and gave the summary judgement to the defendants. Case Facts The claimant (Proform) entered into an agreement with 15 year old footballing talent Wayne Rooney (D.O.B. 24/10/1985) -who was already involved with Everton FC- on December 12th 2000. The terms of the agreement, which were also signed by Mr. Rooney’s father, declared that Wayne Rooney was not permitted to negotiate playing contracts or appoint another agent to represent him. In May 2002, the claimant declined the opportunity to allow the second defendant (Mr Stretford) or on behalf of the first defendant (Proactive) to represent his client in any form. On June 27th 2002, a letter sent to the claimant signed by the player and his
Bibliography: BBC (2006) ‘School leaving age mayberaised’ [Online] November 10th 2009 Available From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6135516.stm [Accessed May 13th 2010]. Chaplin v Leslie Frewin (Publishers) Ltd [1965] 3 All ER 764, [1966] Ch71, [1966] 2 WLR 40 Denmark Productions Ltd v Boscobel Productions Ltd [1968] 3 All ER 513, [1969] 1 QB 699 Greig v Insole, World Series Cricket Pty Ltd v Insole [1978] 3 All ER 449, [1978] 1 WLR 302 Proform Sports Management Ltd v Proactive Sports Management Ltd and another [2006] EWHC 2812 (Ch) Roberts v Gray [1913] 1 KB 520, [1911–13] All ER Rep 870, CA Shears v Mendeloff (1914) 30 TLR 342 The FA (2009) ‘Rules of the Association’ [Online] May 19th 2009) Available From: http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Rules_Regs/Rules_of_ the_association_pg91-127.ashx/Rules_of_the_association_pg91-127.pdf [Accessed May 13th 2010]. The FA (2009) ‘FA Football Agent Regulations’ [Online] July 4th 2009) Available From: http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/RulesandRegulations/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/ Agents%20regulations%202009/FA%20Football%20Agents%20Regulations%20July%2 02009.PDF [Accessed May 13th 2010]. -7-