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, properly construed, transfers the Claimant's share of rights to the Defendant upon exercise of the Right of First Refusal and is not a penalty; clauses 6.4 and 7 do not impose an unreasonable restraint of trade or slavery, as any constraints on the Player arise from his employment contract, not the funding agreement.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2446 (QB)
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 Hearing
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; Claimant's application for permission dismissed; claim to proceed to trial on remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Penalty Clauses, Restraint of Trade, Third Party Rights in Football Transfers, Summary Judgment, Slavery or Servitude Under Human Rights
Contract Law Sports Law Human Rights Penalty Clauses Restraint of Trade Third Party Rights in Football Transfers Summary Judgment Slavery or Servitude Under Human Rights

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 Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 6.4 constitutes an unenforceable penalty
  2. 2 Whether clauses 6.4 and 7 impose an unreasonable restraint of trade affecting the Player
  3. 3 Whether the agreement amounts to slavery or servitude under Article 4 of the Human Rights Convention

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 6.4, properly construed, transfers the Claimant's share of rights to the Defendant upon exercise of the Right of First Refusal and is not a penalty; clauses 6.4 and 7 do not impose an unreasonable restraint of trade or slavery, as any constraints on the Player arise from his employment contract, not the funding agreement.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; Claimant's application for permission dismissed; claim to proceed to trial on remaining issues.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Claimant's application for permission dismissed