An explanation of interim injunctions in sports litigation
Published 08 June 2017 By: Daniel Burgess
Injunctions are a mandatory order requiring a party to act or, most often, refrain from acting in a particular way. They provide arguably the most useful remedy in sports litigation. When sought on an urgent interim basis (pending trial) they can determine, most fundamentally, the issue of which players and teams are entitled to compete while the lengthy trial process takes it course. They can also, in certain circumstances, provide sport litigators with access to the “nuclear weapons” of civil litigation in the form of search and freezing orders.
Interim injunctions may arise in the sporting field, firstly, as part of an ordinary civil claim. A recent example of an invasive injunction in the sporting field was the search order granted in 2014 to Cardiff City FC and executed at the home of the club’s former head of recruitment, Iain Moody, in support of a claim arising from transfers made at the Club while Malky Mackay was manager, which resulted in the much-publicised scandal concerning racist text messages.
Secondly, interim injunctions may arise as part of a civil claim challenging the decision of a sports governing body, most commonly in breach of contract (where a contract exists between the body and the relevant individual or entity) but also by way of an interim declaration in a claim premised on Bradley principles (following the decision in Newport v FAW). It should be noted that the remedy is equally open to the governing body. In Welsh Rugby Union Ltd v Cardiff Blues, for example, the WRU obtained an injunction preventing the Region from hindering its players from attending training with the national team.
Thirdly, interim injunctions are available as a remedy granted in a sports arbitration, either by the panel itself pursuant to its own rules, or by a court, pursuant to Section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996. This jurisdiction has some complexities and is discussed in more detail below.
Get access to this article and all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport
Already a member?
Articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts
This work was written for and first published on LawInSport.com (unless otherwise stated) and the copyright is owned by LawInSport Ltd. Permission is granted to make digital or hard copies of this work (or part, or abstracts, of it) for personal use provided copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage, and provided that all copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page (which should include the URL, company name (LawInSport), article title, author name, date of the publication and date of use) of any copies made. Copyright for components of this work owned by parties other than LawInSport must be honoured.
- Tags: Athletics | Cricket | Dispute Resolution | England | England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) | Football | Rugby | The FA Rules and Regulations | The Football Association (The FA) | Wales
- Player contracts: How contractual stability can override a liquidated damages clause
- The role of the UEFA Ethics and Disciplinary Inspector in disciplinary proceedings
- When can a club oblige a player to undertake an individual training plan? A review of the Sebino Plaku case
- The rebalancing of power - the need for greater transparency in sports tribunals
The focus of Daniel’s practice is commercial litigation, civil fraud, arbitration and banking and financial services. He has been instructed as sole counsel in the Court of Appeal, all divisions of the High Court and in ICC arbitral proceedings. He is also frequently instructed as part of multi-counsel teams in large-scale commercial disputes.