Is there any legal stand point that the dogs can take on Hasler in regards to the state he has left the club in....perhaps even claim they ditched him because of it?? He has history to back it up (Manly).
I'm a Senior Counsel and although I practice criminal law,I'm quite versed in contract law.I have covered the above subject matter extensively in past threads.The only way Bulldogs can have any legal grounds is under Promissory Estoppel.This applies if Des's contract,verbal or formal had/has performance clauses that he has not met in the past.Or there is indisputable evidence that he will be unable to met in the future.In pursuing the legal efficacy of offer and acceptance,the court must enforce the contract in it's entirety,which makes financial obligations together with all tabled clauses binding.
The above article is not very informative I'm afraid and can be subject to multiple theories.
Unfortunately I suspect that the Bulldog's settlement offer for $600k,that was proposed at,or considered for presentation at the listed 'First Directions Hearing',was either rejected,or one of the parties had concerns or challenges that were not answered,or some directions stipulated by the Supreme Court judge were not met.This means that the judge has problems with directing favorable orders to alter the parties for commencement of Alternate Dispute Resolution for Mediation instead of trial.
Unless there are specific clauses that stipulate that a player's contract is subject to Des being coach or employed in any capacity at the Bulldogs,during their term of service,he has no legal contractual grounds.Ask yourself this.What if Des got sick,died,got incarcerated or became indisposed? Would that still make these contracts invalid,because of a verbal unattached conversation?
Without being privy to verbal details that were proposed,promised or drafted and without having sighted the subpoenas,I suspect the reason for the clubs and players being subpoenaed,is because Des's Counsel has petitioned the court for subsequent hearings.These hearings will seek a 'Further Directions Hearing',which in fact is a confirmation that Mediation has failed,or one of the parties failed to comply with the directions of the court.
I suspect Des's counsel will seek to present Dib's rush promise,any favorable conversations with other clubs and advancement discussions that were significant in finalizing the players contracts,as backup evidence in one of these hearings.If resolution is not met at these hearings and depending on the evidence the judge could commit this case (with all presented evidence) for trial .
I believe it would be worth pursuing Dib for professional negligence and incompetence,subject under Law of Agency and since Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs is a corporate entity,any breaches come under Corporations Act 2001 and Associations Incorporation Act 2009 (NSW).This part of the law in judgement deals with propensity of evidence and not absolute guilt (similar to Civil Law).If the Bulldogs Counsel can amount enough evidence against Dib,it would make any promises he made negligible and unenforceable.If this is dealt with in a timely correct manner,leave should be sought of Dib,due to conflicting interest and bias by Dib against the club.(In other words shut him up before he screws us)
There is one huge hurdle to overcome,because even though the board of directors bears ultimate responsibility,since their appointments are subject to elections by membership and the previous board has been dismissed (that becomes their retribution),liability cannot be sought and the matter cannot be dealt with in retrospective.But since they were a paid servant of the club any documentation,letters,minutes of meetings ect can be used to substantiate their negligence.
It sounds like a full regalia of silks is going to be employed and if I was Des's Counsel I would (urge) advice him to go to trial.A case like this is easily worth $200k plus.
