McGill v The Sports and Entertainment Media Group & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 1063 (04 November 2016)

McGill v The Sports and Entertainment Media Group & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 1063 (04 November 2016)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law by requiring Mr McGill to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Player would have signed a written agency agreement. The correct approach was to assess damages on a loss of a chance basis, reflecting the real and substantial opportunity that Mr McGill lost as a result of SEM's inducement. The oral contract was valid and enforceable as between the parties, and SEM's conduct constituted inducement of breach. The case was remitted for assessment of damages on the correct legal basis.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 1063
Parties
Appellant: Anthony McGill; Respondents: The Sports and Entertainment Media Group and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (mercantile Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; case remitted for assessment of damages on loss of a chance basis.
Legal Topics
Inducement of Breach of Contract, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Unjust Enrichment, Quantum Meruit, Breach of Confidence, Football Agents Regulations, Loss of a Chance, Damages Assessment
Contract Law Tort Law Sports Law Inducement of Breach of Contract Unlawful Means Conspiracy Unjust Enrichment Quantum Meruit Breach of Confidence +3 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony McGill

Appellant

The Sports and Entertainment Media Group and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (mercantile Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agency contract existed and was enforceable between Mr McGill and the Player
  2. 2 Whether SEM and its agents induced a breach of contract
  3. 3 Whether Mr McGill suffered actionable loss or loss of a chance

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law by requiring Mr McGill to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Player would have signed a written agency agreement. The correct approach was to assess damages on a loss of a chance basis, reflecting the real and substantial opportunity that Mr McGill lost as a result of SEM's inducement. The oral contract was valid and enforceable as between the parties, and SEM's conduct constituted inducement of breach. The case was remitted for assessment of damages on the correct legal basis.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; case remitted for assessment of damages on loss of a chance basis.

Orders

  • Set aside the dismissal of Mr McGill's claim for inducement of breach of contract against SEM and Mr Sheron.
  • Remit the case to the High Court for assessment of damages on a loss of a chance basis.