Des Hasler declined new jobs to stay at Bulldogs, court hears

[speedy2460]

Justice Hammerschlag...

"But when asked, more importantly, who he supports in the cricket and the rugby, the reply was instantaneous: “Australia and Australia on both counts,” he said, explaining that his link to Australian rugby has been all the more strengthened by the fact that he has “in the last number of years, been retained by the rugby union players association, and have done most of their legal work”.

 

[Papa Emeritus]

If Hasler was offered any coaching jobs, he should be made to disclose them to the court.

I would find it pretty hard to comprehend this being proven in court. Being offered is very different from a guarantee of a job as well.

To me it is just Hasler saying he was denied a theoretical chance at a different job and by the time all of this stuff unfolded every team had locked up a new coach (which is true I think).

I am no lawyer so not sure who is the winner here from a legal sense.

 

[CaptainJackson]

I would find it pretty hard to comprehend this being proven in court. Being offered is very different from a guarantee of a job as well.

To me it is just Hasler saying he was denied a theoretical chance at a different job and by the time all of this stuff unfolded every team had locked up a new coach (which is true I think).

I am no lawyer so not sure who is the winner here from a legal sense.

We can just argue back that given the way the fraud had us playing, no one in their right mind would ever offer him another job

 

[Khan00]

We can just argue back that given the way the fraud had us playing, no one in their right mind would ever offer him another job

He ain't gettin shit.
No money from Canterbury and no nrl job offers, that will expose him entirely.
What he's done to manly and us is out of complete arrogance, borderline criminal.

 

[ddt192]

View attachment 4900

Hopefully Justice D Hammershlag is a Dogs fan

Judges name sounds like that of a pornstar lol

 

[Heckler]

View attachment 4900

Hopefully Justice D Hammershlag is a Dogs fan

Hopefully some fake reporter can ask him silly questions entering the courts chaser style.

 

[Mr Invisible]

 

[Heckler]

What's the latest with this case? Im sure this was listed on for yesterday!

 

[albatross]

Hi guys first time poster but have enjoyed perusing the forum since 2007 and for the record thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it.

I'm a litigation lawyer so thought I post would some thoughts on the saga:

1) Des' claim all comes down to certainty of the MOU i.e. was there anything left to be negotiated and/or was the contract conditional on future events and negotiations. Most MOU/HOA are generally between the parties themselves and conditional on the parties entering into a further contract prepared and negotiated throughly by their respective lawyers. Having said that an MOU can be certain on its terms and therefore performed by the parties. It really depends how the judge construes it and whether the dogs can argue it's not certain enough to be performed as it is.

2) the media announcement about des' appointment is extrinsic to the contract and therefore comes under a principle called the parole evidence rule. However, the media announcement itself will not add any more certainty then the terms of the MOU/HOA. However, this issue is more relevant to the question of damages and loss of opportunity.

3) if liability is proved i.e. there was an enforceable legally binding contract the court will move onto the question of damages. Damages will be the amount under the contract had it been performed i.e. 1 million per season. However the question of mitigation comes in i.e. onus on Des to take steps to reduce his loss i.e. What steps he took to secure an income elsewhere. The likely scenario in the next year or so is that Des will secure a contract elsewhere otherwise it won't be a good look at the hearing to say he sat on his ass and did nothing plus I doubt Des won't want to be out of the game for too long otherwise like any career, this will adversely impact his ability to secure future employment.

4) the court will then take into account any income he has or will be receiving over the next 2 years and deduct that from what he will have received under his new contract with the dogs. This for me is Des' BIGGEST issue in trying to recover the whole amount which he is almost certainly to be unsuccessful.

5) by the way the contract claim above is his legal claim under the common law. Des also has a separate and additional claim of estoppel (a claim in equity law) where he Des will argue he relied on a promise by the dogs that he would be employed for the next 2 years and therefore declined other job opportunities and/or potential employers did not approach him. His claim for damages under this category is separate to his claim for the value of the contract of $2 million and would instead would be for lost opportunity i.e. the amount he would have signed with someone else for had he made himself available. Des needs to prove there was a real prospect of this happening and show evidence of inquiries or offers made to him.

What do I think will happen? Like most of you have already predicted, if I was his lawyer I would be telling Des to settle sooner rather than later if he wants move onto somewhere else. No doubt a settlement also suits the dogs!

Up the dogs and looking forward to 2018!!

Sounds like that ends any chance of Fifita suing us. The Sharks would be paying him plenty and he went around saying he regretted signing with us. He wanted out as much as we did.

 

[EXPLORER]

I haven't read this thread through,
But anyone in the know.
Can you tell me, what jobs exactly did Des turn down?

 

[EXPLORER]

Hi guys first time poster but have enjoyed perusing the forum since 2007 and for the record thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it.

I'm a litigation lawyer so thought I post would some thoughts on the saga:

1) Des' claim all comes down to certainty of the MOU i.e. was there anything left to be negotiated and/or was the contract conditional on future events and negotiations. Most MOU/HOA are generally between the parties themselves and conditional on the parties entering into a further contract prepared and negotiated throughly by their respective lawyers. Having said that an MOU can be certain on its terms and therefore performed by the parties. It really depends how the judge construes it and whether the dogs can argue it's not certain enough to be performed as it is.

2) the media announcement about des' appointment is extrinsic to the contract and therefore comes under a principle called the parole evidence rule. However, the media announcement itself will not add any more certainty then the terms of the MOU/HOA. However, this issue is more relevant to the question of damages and loss of opportunity.

3) if liability is proved i.e. there was an enforceable legally binding contract the court will move onto the question of damages. Damages will be the amount under the contract had it been performed i.e. 1 million per season. However the question of mitigation comes in i.e. onus on Des to take steps to reduce his loss i.e. What steps he took to secure an income elsewhere. The likely scenario in the next year or so is that Des will secure a contract elsewhere otherwise it won't be a good look at the hearing to say he sat on his ass and did nothing plus I doubt Des won't want to be out of the game for too long otherwise like any career, this will adversely impact his ability to secure future employment.

4) the court will then take into account any income he has or will be receiving over the next 2 years and deduct that from what he will have received under his new contract with the dogs. This for me is Des' BIGGEST issue in trying to recover the whole amount which he is almost certainly to be unsuccessful.

5) by the way the contract claim above is his legal claim under the common law. Des also has a separate and additional claim of estoppel (a claim in equity law) where he Des will argue he relied on a promise by the dogs that he would be employed for the next 2 years and therefore declined other job opportunities and/or potential employers did not approach him. His claim for damages under this category is separate to his claim for the value of the contract of $2 million and would instead would be for lost opportunity i.e. the amount he would have signed with someone else for had he made himself available. Des needs to prove there was a real prospect of this happening and show evidence of inquiries or offers made to him.

What do I think will happen? Like most of you have already predicted, if I was his lawyer I would be telling Des to settle sooner rather than later if he wants move onto somewhere else. No doubt a settlement also suits the dogs!

Up the dogs and looking forward to 2018!!

thank you for this post,
Best first post ever in my opinion.
This just confirms what us not the know suspected.
It has put my mind at ease a little,

I hope an out of court settlement happens sooner rather than later so our club can put Des behind us one and for all.

 

[EXPLORER]

Sounds like that ends any chance of Fifita suing us. The Sharks would be paying him plenty and he went around saying he regretted signing with us. He wanted out as much as we did.

Yeah, I hope so.
I couldn't stand to thought of our club giving that fat prick money for nothing.

 

[Kelpie03]

Des was a fraud at our club, although the judge might not see it, every other NRL Club board will, my prediction is that he will never land another job in Australia at least.

 

[Kelpie03]

Sounds like that ends any chance of Fifita suing us. The Sharks would be paying him plenty and he went around saying he regretted signing with us. He wanted out as much as we did.

It's sad but I've always been certain that the Fifita suing our Club saga was a red herring planted by someone trying to get the current board voted out.