Resources: Blog

Sports agency sues former employees for poaching clients

Blog
|

Who's with me?

A recent dispute between one of Australia’s leading sports agencies and two of its ex-employees is a reminder to employers about the importance of implementing processes to protect confidential information, including that of their customers and clients.

A recent dispute between one of Australia’s leading sports agencies and two of it's ex-employees is a reminder to employers about the importance of implementing processes to protect confidential information, including that of their customers and clients.

Ultra Management Sports, an agency that represents many elite rugby league and rugby union players, commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia, claiming that two of it's player agents amended player/agent contracts without authorisation. The alleged amendments included the insertion of clauses which allowed those players to leave the agency if and when those agents eventually left.

Ultra is claiming that the contracts were amended following an update to the NRL player agent contract policy, which included a clause in new contracts that would tie clients to their agents, and not the company that the agents worked for. The agents allegedly amended the existing contracts of 16 players despite the policy stating that existing contracts were not affected by the policy change and they would simply run their course. The agents subsequently created their own sports agency and a number of their clients then joined that new agency.

Ultra is seeking damages resulting from the conduct of the agents, which it claims amounted to an illegal poaching of clients and a failure to act in the best interests of their then-employer.

A 5-day hearing of the matter in the Federal Court of Australia recently ended on 8 October 2019, with the Court reserving its decision.

Whilst we await the outcome, this matter is a prime example of why employers should ensure that they have adequation protections in place to regulate what an employee can and cannot do during their employment, including authorisation to amend contracts with clients.

Employers should also ensure that their employment contracts appropriately deal with what an employee can and cannot do with the employer’s confidential information, and that of its customers and clients, both during and after employment. The more senior an employee is in the business, the more stringent those protections or limitations should be.

It is also an important lesson for athletes to ensure that they fully understand what their rights and obligations will be under any contract, and that their management team is acting in their best interests. Managing contracts can be complex as there are a number of things to consider, such as contracts with clubs, sporting organisations, third party sponsors and even contracts with player agents themselves.

It is therefore crucial that athletes understand what their obligations are and that they trust the advisors they partner with to act in their best interests.

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

Commission finds mask mandate to be a lawful and reasonable direction

Mask up

Employees have a duty to comply with lawful and reasonable directions from their employer. In the current COVID-19 context, a key concern for employers is whether it is lawful and reasonable to issue directions related to safety matters arising from the pandemic.

Read more...

Lack of consultation rendered mandatory vaccination requirement unreasonable

Talk before you walk

Consultation with employees always plays an important part when introducing changes in the workplace. Under work health and safety legislation, employers have a duty to consult with their workers as far as reasonably practicable in relation to health and safety matters.

Read more...

Commission finds employer’s suspicion of an employee’s misconduct was not a valid reason for dismissal

Under suspicion

If considering taking disciplinary action due to an employee’s misconduct, it is critical that an employer makes a decision based on wrongdoing as opposed to a mere suspicion of wrongdoing.

Read more...

Commission finds mask mandate to be a lawful and reasonable direction

Mask up

Employees have a duty to comply with lawful and reasonable directions from their employer. In the current COVID-19 context, a key concern for employers is whether it is lawful and reasonable to issue directions related to safety matters arising from the pandemic.

Read more...

Lack of consultation rendered mandatory vaccination requirement unreasonable

Talk before you walk

Consultation with employees always plays an important part when introducing changes in the workplace. Under work health and safety legislation, employers have a duty to consult with their workers as far as reasonably practicable in relation to health and safety matters.

Read more...

Offers of alternative employment in redundancy cases

An offer you can refuse

In most cases of redundancy, employers have an obligation to consult with affected employees about the proposed redundancy and consider whether or not anything can be done to mitigate or minimise the impact on the employee, such as redeployment or obtaining other acceptable employment for the employee.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.