Rio Football Services Hungary KFT v Sevilla Futbal Club SAD [2010] EWHC 2446 (QB) (06 October 2010)

Rio Football Services Hungary KFT v Sevilla Futbal Club SAD [2010] EWHC 2446 (QB) (06 October 2010)

Clause 6.4, when construed in the context of the agreement as a whole, does not constitute a penalty but rather effects a transfer of rights for consideration; clauses 6.4 and 7 do not impose an unreasonable restraint of trade on the Player, as any such restraint arises from the employment contract, not the funding agreement; the slavery argument fails as it is contingent on the restraint of trade argument, which is rejected.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2446
Parties
Claimant and Respondent: RIO FOOTBALL SERVICES HUNGARY KFT; Defendant and Appellant: SEVILLA FUTBAL CLUB SAD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (summary Judgment) / Permission to Appeal (renewed Application)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; summary judgment for Claimant on eight issues upheld; claim proceeds to trial on remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Penalty Clauses, Restraint of Trade, Third Party Rights in Football Transfers, Summary Judgment, Human Rights (article 4 Echr)
Contract Law Sports Law Human Rights Penalty Clauses Restraint of Trade Third Party Rights in Football Transfers Summary Judgment Human Rights (article 4 Echr)

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RIO FOOTBALL SERVICES HUNGARY KFT

Claimant and Respondent

SEVILLA FUTBAL CLUB SAD

Defendant and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (summary Judgment) / Permission to Appeal (renewed Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 6.4 of the agreement constitutes an unenforceable penalty clause
  2. 2 Whether clauses 6.4 and 7 amount to an unreasonable restraint of trade affecting the Player's rights
  3. 3 Whether the agreement contravenes Article 4 of the Human Rights Convention (slavery or servitude)

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 6.4, when construed in the context of the agreement as a whole, does not constitute a penalty but rather effects a transfer of rights for consideration; clauses 6.4 and 7 do not impose an unreasonable restraint of trade on the Player, as any such restraint arises from the employment contract, not the funding agreement; the slavery argument fails as it is contingent on the restraint of trade argument, which is rejected.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; summary judgment for Claimant on eight issues upheld; claim proceeds to trial on remaining issues.

Orders

  • Defendant's renewed application for permission to appeal dismissed.
  • Claimant's application for permission to appeal on remaining issues dismissed.