Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

JDB Federal Court Challenge

Indy0204

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
117
It looks like the NRL have taken a bit of a hit today in Court:

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-premiership/nrl-boss-to-take-stand-in-de-belins-nofault-stand-down-trial/news-story/3d8394f8bb229e9118aa011bf1b624bf

One of things they were relying on to justify the introduction of their 'no-fault' policy is historical evidence of their NPS or Net Promotor Score, which is essentially how likely someone is to recommend the NRL to another person.

The NRL's case thus far has been that because of the off field incidents, the NRL's NPS has been reducing and this reduction has required the introduction of the policy.

The judge, has thrown out the evidence for a lack of relevance to the case.

I am a law student, but am not quite sure with the precise question of law that is being put to the Federal Court. My understanding is that this is an issue of administrative law; the NRL is a body which was presumably empowered by Federal Act and can make decisions within the ambit of the authority delegated to them. They will not be able to violate fundamental freedoms which include principles of natural justice - i.e. the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.

So the case will turn on whether the NRL had the authority to bring in this policy.

All in all, looks like a bit of a blow to the NRL's case and we might be seeing JDB and Dylan Walker back in action sooner rather than later!
 

The Wheel

https://membership.seaeagles.com.au/
Premium Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
14,440
I am no legal eagle but is it a restraint of trade in this case for no justifiable reason? Ie they are not allowing JDB to apply his trade especially given he in the eyes of the law is innocent at the moment
 

Indy0204

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
117
I am no legal eagle but is it a restraint of trade in this case for no justifiable reason? Ie they are not allowing JDB to apply his trade especially given he in the eyes of the law is innocent at the moment
I think that's what's been plead by JDB's counsel so far. I imagine his team are arguing multiple grounds for why the policy is invalid. I think there is also a real issue with the possibility of interfering with the right to fair trial of these players. It will be very hard to empanel a jury who do not know who these players are because of the controversy that has been caused. And even though it's called a 'no-fault' policy, the issue is that it is a form of pre-judicial punishment which can invite bias and preconceptions from potential jurors.

For the legal nerd in me, it is a very interesting case!
 

Mark from Brisbane

Living the dream
Premium Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
28,921
Iโ€™m no legal eagle either but itโ€™s a dumb **** rule and deserves to be ****ed off to oblivion!!

This is the rule to prejudge and penalise a player before their day in court as nothing to do wether I think the players are guilty or not.
 

Brissie Kid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
3,472
Iโ€™m no legal eagle either but itโ€™s a dumb **** rule and deserves to be ****ed off to oblivion!!

This is the rule to prejudge and penalise a player before their day in court as nothing to do wether I think the players are guilty or not.
As a responsible member of the Australian community, the NRL and its sponsors should be standing up for Australian principles of democracy and justice. Innocent unless proven guilty.
 

nightster

Well worn member
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
4,355
It looks like the NRL have taken a bit of a hit today in Court:

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-premiership/nrl-boss-to-take-stand-in-de-belins-nofault-stand-down-trial/news-story/3d8394f8bb229e9118aa011bf1b624bf

One of things they were relying on to justify the introduction of their 'no-fault' policy is historical evidence of their NPS or Net Promotor Score, which is essentially how likely someone is to recommend the NRL to another person.

The NRL's case thus far has been that because of the off field incidents, the NRL's NPS has been reducing and this reduction has required the introduction of the policy.

The judge, has thrown out the evidence for a lack of relevance to the case.

I am a law student, but am not quite sure with the precise question of law that is being put to the Federal Court. My understanding is that this is an issue of administrative law; the NRL is a body which was presumably empowered by Federal Act and can make decisions within the ambit of the authority delegated to them. They will not be able to violate fundamental freedoms which include principles of natural justice - i.e. the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.

So the case will turn on whether the NRL had the authority to bring in this policy.

All in all, looks like a bit of a blow to the NRL's case and we might be seeing JDB and Dylan Walker back in action sooner rather than later!
In that case Turdy Greenburglar and Peter Beatoff should be on trial, its their uneven playing field, that allows eye gouging from the pets but gives manly 2 weeks suspension for an accidental slap, that is reducing the NPS
 

Harvies elbow

I'm a country member....... " Yes we remember "
Premium Member
2017 Tipping Competitor
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
7,658
As a responsible member of the Australian community, the NRL and its sponsors should be standing up for Australian principles of democracy and justice. Innocent unless proven guilty.
The idiots implement things to make themselves look good but end up looking like turkeys.
Time and time again...
 

mjb136

MWSE fanatic
Premium Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
1,747
If the NRL are relying on what is tantamount to a customer satisfaction survey (NPS) as the reasoning behind the creation of the behavioural guideline, that in effect creates a restraint of trade, then the FC Judge quite rightly will pay no attention to it. I will be surprised if the appeal is not upheld and de Belin not free to play. Counsel for de Belin have played the smart angle on his inability to earn future income due to ignoring the presumption of innocence by not allowing him to play and showcase his skill due to a trial that could last months/years.

Interesting precedent to be set here either way for all sporting codes. Let's hope that it ends the career of Greenturd and his moronic chairman Peter Beat-off
 

brad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
5,171
I hope both boys get to play so I can sit back and watch pecker head squirm his way out of it.
 

Indy0204

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
117

Eagle of London

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
Apr 29, 2016
Messages
962
I'm with the NRL and the NPS figures they use. It's a very credible point the make.

The NPS is based on the PPS ( pooch prodding scale) that was used when Mitch Pierce attempted intercourse with that dog all those years ago. Apparently that one prodding caused the PPS to go from Negitive 20 to positive 320453. Dogs were flocking to the game like never before in the hope of a good shafting. Unfortunately the head dog greenturd decided to make it his life work to shaft any Seaeagle south of Newcastle first and foremost.

Cant believe the judge would disregard such strong evidential evidence.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top Bottom