The Court held that under the AFLPA standard form Representation Agreement, fees are only payable during the Term of the agreement and not for the entire duration of a Player Contract that extends beyond it. However, the Court found that Pickering and Pitcher breached their implied employment duties of care and skill, and s 180(1) of the Corporations Act, by failing to ensure Representation Agreements were co-terminous with Player Contracts, drawing the inference that players would have signed extended agreements if asked. On the oppression claim, the Court found that a capital raising whose main purpose was to dilute a minority shareholder's interest from 40% to less than 1% constituted oppression under s 232, notwithstanding the stated purpose of funding litigation, and ordered a buyout of the minority's shares. The Court declined to find improper use of position or information under ss 182-183, holding that while Pickering and Pitcher benefited from their positions, their pre-resignation conduct in establishing a competing business did not cross the line into impropriety in the circumstances.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 18 later cases that cite this judgment.