Stretford v Football Association Ltd & Anor [2006] EWHC 479 (Ch) (17 March 2006)

Stretford v Football Association Ltd & Anor [2006] EWHC 479 (Ch) (17 March 2006)

Rule K was incorporated into the contract between Mr Stretford and the FA by virtue of the licensing process, the express terms on the licence, and Mr Stretford's conduct. The meeting of 2 September 2005 did not preclude the FA from relying on Rule K. The arbitration agreement was not null, void, or inoperative under s.9(4) Arbitration Act 1996, as the waiver of Article 6 rights was voluntary, informed, and unequivocal. Accordingly, the proceedings must be stayed in favour of arbitration.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 479 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Paul Stretford; First Defendant: The Football Association Limited; Second Defendant: Barry Bright
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (civil, Declaratory Relief) / Application for Stay of Proceedings Under S.9 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Proceedings stayed in favour of arbitration under Rule K.
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreements, Incorporation of Terms, Waiver of Article 6 ECHR Rights, Restraint of Trade, Public Policy in Disciplinary Proceedings
Sports Law Contract Law Arbitration Human Rights Arbitration Agreements Incorporation of Terms Waiver of Article 6 ECHR Rights Restraint of Trade +1 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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Stretford

Claimant

The Football Association Limited

First Defendant

Barry Bright

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (civil, Declaratory Relief) / Application for Stay of Proceedings Under S.9 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule K (arbitration clause) was incorporated into the contract between Mr Stretford and the FA
  2. 2 Whether the events of the 2 September 2005 meeting precluded reliance on Rule K
  3. 3 Whether Rule K is null and void or inoperative under s.9(4) Arbitration Act 1996, particularly in light of Article 6 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Rule K was incorporated into the contract between Mr Stretford and the FA by virtue of the licensing process, the express terms on the licence, and Mr Stretford's conduct. The meeting of 2 September 2005 did not preclude the FA from relying on Rule K. The arbitration agreement was not null, void, or inoperative under s.9(4) Arbitration Act 1996, as the waiver of Article 6 rights was voluntary, informed, and unequivocal. Accordingly, the proceedings must be stayed in favour of arbitration.

Court Disposition

Proceedings stayed in favour of arbitration under Rule K.

Orders

  • Stay of all further proceedings pursuant to s.9 Arbitration Act 1996, subject to the FA's undertaking regarding publication of the arbitral award as indicated in the judgment.