The Denny Solomona transfer: Why did Castleford settle and does the case set a new precedent?
The High Court action brought by Castleford Tigers against Denny Solomona, Sale Sharks and Andrew Clarke (Solomona’s agent) in relation to Solomona’s contentious move from Castleford to Sale has been settled.
In a remarkably detailed statement, Castleford has disclosed that the settlement figure is in excess of £200,000 and it is to recover approximately £100,000 in legal costs. The statement also sets out additional detail about the background to the matter[1]. It should be noted that neither Solomona, Sale Sharks nor Clarke have released any statement of their own. However, one would assume the decision to settle was led and underwritten by Sale.
Back in January 2017, the author wrote an article for LawInSport examining the key legal issues arising out of the Solomona case (available here)[2]. This article re-visits these issues in light of the settlement and Castleford’s statement. Specifically it looks at:
- Was there a breach of contract and an inducement to breach contract?
- Why did Castleford decide to settle the case?
- Does the case set a new precedent?
To continue reading or watching login or register here
Already a member? Sign in
Get access to all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport including articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts. Find out more here.
- Tags: Australia | Australian Rules Football | Contract | Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) | Employment | English Premiership | FIFA | Fiji | Football | National Football League (NFL) | RFL Operational Rules | RFL Standard Contact | Rugby | Rugby Football League (RFL) | Rugby League | Rugby Union | Super League | United Kingdom (UK) | United States of America (USA)
Related Articles
- Can you prevent cross-code player poaching in rugby?
- How Spain’s "Real Decreto" impacts football player transfers and solidarity contributions under FIFA Regulations
- Cross-code transfers in Rugby – Will the Denny Solomona case set a new precedent?
- Player contracts: How contractual stability can override a liquidated damages clause
Written by
James Hill
James is an associate specialising in commercial litigation and regulatory matters in the sports sector - in particular football, rugby, cricket and cycling - advising governing bodies, clubs, athletes, agencies and brands. Prior to Onside Law, James trained and qualified at Fieldfisher in the Dispute Resolution department.
His practice encompasses High Court and County Court litigation, international and domestic arbitration, sports disciplinary proceedings and regulatory investigations. Regular work includes contractual disputes, sports disciplinary proceedings, governing body investigations, breaches of post-termination restrictive covenants, claims for inducing breach of contract, insolvency claims, defamation and intellectual property infringements.
He also has experience advising clients on commercial agreements, drafting rules and regulations for governing bodies, advising agents and players on representation contracts and advising clubs and agents on playing contracts and transfers.
Away from the office, James is a Millwall season ticket holder and keen cyclist since injury brought his rugby playing days to an end.
