Hughes, K.J. v. Western Australian Cricket Association & Ors [1986] FCA 465

Hughes, K.J. v. Western Australian Cricket Association & Ors [1986] FCA 465

W.A.C.A. was a trading corporation; the Cricket Council's amended rule 2:38:1 implemented an exclusionary provision contrary to s.45(2)(a)(i) Trade Practices Act. The rule constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade for professional cricketers including the applicant and was void. No substantial lessening of competition was proven. Ultra vires occurred by failing to properly consider the applicant's request. Other common law and statutory claims (conspiracy, bad faith/bias, discrimination, breach of deed) failed. Applicant entitled to declaratory relief and modest damages.

Parties
Applicant: Kimberley John Hughes; First Respondent: Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc.); Second Respondent: Mt. Lawley District Cricket Club (Inc.); Second Respondent: Melville Cricket Club (Inc.); Second Respondent: North Perth Cricket Club (Inc.); Second Respondent: Subiaco Floreat Cricket Club (Inc.); Second Respondent: Bayswater-Morley Cricket Club (Inc.); Second Respondent: Perth Cricket Club (Inc.); Second Respondent: Fremantle District Cricket Club (Inc.); Second Respondent: Claremont-Cottesloe Cricket Club (Inc.); Second Respondent: South Perth Cricket Club (Inc.); Second Respondent: Midland-Guildford Cricket Club (Inc.); Second Respondent: Wanneroo District Cricket Club (Inc.); Third Respondent: Leslie Annison (on behalf of Southern District Cricket Club); Third Respondent: Gregory Bunney (on behalf of Scarborough Cricket Club); Third Respondent: Michael Snell (on behalf of Nedlands Cricket Club); Third Respondent: Phillip Clifford (on behalf of University Cricket Club); Fourth Respondent: Kevin Morris Taylforth (on behalf of Cricket Council of Western Australia Australian Cricket Association (Inc.))
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 1986
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trade Practices Act / Final Judgment – Reasons Issued
Outcome
Application partly allowed: relief granted for breach of Trade Practices Act, restraint of trade, and procedural ultra vires; other claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Trading Corporations, Restraint of Trade, Exclusionary Provision, Ultra Vires, Conspiracy, Bad Faith and Bias, Jurisdiction, Equal Opportunity
Competition Law Sports Law Associations Law Common Law Trading Corporations Restraint of Trade Exclusionary Provision Ultra Vires +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kimberley John Hughes

Applicant

Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc.)

First Respondent

Mt. Lawley District Cricket Club (Inc.)

Second Respondent

Melville Cricket Club (Inc.)

Second Respondent

North Perth Cricket Club (Inc.)

Second Respondent

Subiaco Floreat Cricket Club (Inc.)

Second Respondent

Bayswater-Morley Cricket Club (Inc.)

Second Respondent

Perth Cricket Club (Inc.)

Second Respondent

Fremantle District Cricket Club (Inc.)

Second Respondent

Claremont-Cottesloe Cricket Club (Inc.)

Second Respondent

South Perth Cricket Club (Inc.)

Second Respondent

Midland-Guildford Cricket Club (Inc.)

Second Respondent

Wanneroo District Cricket Club (Inc.)

Second Respondent

Leslie Annison (on behalf of Southern District Cricket Club)

Third Respondent

Gregory Bunney (on behalf of Scarborough Cricket Club)

Third Respondent

Michael Snell (on behalf of Nedlands Cricket Club)

Third Respondent

Phillip Clifford (on behalf of University Cricket Club)

Third Respondent

Kevin Morris Taylforth (on behalf of Cricket Council of Western Australia Australian Cricket Association (Inc.))

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trade Practices Act / Final Judgment – Reasons Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether W.A.C.A. and clubs are trading corporations under s.4(1) Trade Practices Act
  2. 2 Whether amendment to Cricket Council rule 2:38:1 constituted an unlawful exclusionary provision contra s.45 and s.4D Trade Practices Act
  3. 3 Whether rule amendment constituted unreasonable restraint of trade

Ratio Decidendi

W.A.C.A. was a trading corporation; the Cricket Council's amended rule 2:38:1 implemented an exclusionary provision contrary to s.45(2)(a)(i) Trade Practices Act. The rule constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade for professional cricketers including the applicant and was void. No substantial lessening of competition was proven. Ultra vires occurred by failing to properly consider the applicant's request. Other common law and statutory claims (conspiracy, bad faith/bias, discrimination, breach of deed) failed. Applicant entitled to declaratory relief and modest damages.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed: relief granted for breach of Trade Practices Act, restraint of trade, and procedural ultra vires; other claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that rule 2:38:1 is void as an unreasonable restraint of trade and unlawful exclusionary provision under s.45 Trade Practices Act
  • Damages awarded to applicant: $250 against W.A.C.A. and most clubs