Friday, 20 September 2013

Legal Action Against Rashid??

In coaching contract, successful coach who breaches the contract and leaving the institution prematurely will not move out freely as he or she wishes. However, the institution which terminates the coach's contract may do so without serious repercussions. The institution has prepared itself through careful contract drafting from various legal protection associated with coach's termination. In most sports contract, the institution has the right at any time to terminate the coach's contract for 'termination without cause' prior to its expiration. It normally involves payment of compensation to the coach.

That is the position of 1980s and 1990s. This has changed dramatically. Coaching now is a high profession. And I believe that the recent possible legal scenario against Rashid Sidek will not only significantly affecting his livelihood but reputation and publicised consequences. Thus, in this case, we have to stretch our legal mind from traditional principles of contract law to special employment relationship. In normal contractual relationship, the institution offers the opportunity, and the coach does the work. If either fails to perform their duties, then that party is in breach and pay damages.

However, in the suit of a departed coach, the institution must consider some important points. First, measuring the 'value' of one coach's service is an inherently difficult. His 10 years service as national single coach is unlikely irreplaceable. Second is bad publicity. Court litigation and intense publicity can prolong bad feeling, thus affect the sports spirit and talent development. Third, the complex calculation for compensation arrangement to obtain the new coach could be extremely difficult. At the end, most coaches may virtually leave the institution at will. Moreover, Rashid is leaving for better position and prestige. 

What I worried most is the implication beyond coaching contracts. The successful coach may claim for 'any real degree of special opportunity for enhancement of reputation'. It carries a potential recovery for extraordinary contractual damages if breaches. This 'subsidiary pecuniary advantages' has been discussed in old English case of Marbe v Edwards (1928) 1 KB 269. This position is beyond lawyer's creativity and imagination....