PDA

View Full Version : 2000 court case redux (sf 2016 Baku NZ teams)



ER
15-12-2015, 09:26 PM
Perhaps Elliott was making the point that unlike the Australian chess context lawsuits involving chess personalities are virtually unheard of in NZ Over the last 30 or so years I can only think of one incident vaguely approaching a lawsuit in NZ chess - and even then I'm not sure if lawyers have any involvement beyond giving advice to one or two parties.

Although I was only joking in my previous, I have some knowledge of the case.
What really impressed me was the very intelligent move by the judge to seek expert opinion outside of court.
Two eminent chess personalities (both Victorian) were approached to give their opinion on the matter!
I have no knowledge of the effect of their opinion on the final outcome of the case.
I understand, however, that they presented an objective, unbiased and thorough perspective of the situation!

Kevin Bonham
15-12-2015, 10:26 PM
What really impressed me was the very intelligent move by the judge to seek expert opinion outside of court.
Two eminent chess personalities (both Victorian) were approached to give their opinion on the matter!

This is drifting off-topic here but actually they were Robert Jamieson (Vic) and the late Peter Parr (NSW) and they were called as defence witnesses, ie by the ACF. Both indeed did an excellent job. I am trying to find the judgement again since the original link is now down.

ER
15-12-2015, 11:24 PM
This is drifting off-topic here but actually they were Robert Jamieson (Vic) and the late Peter Parr (NSW) and they were called as defence witnesses, ie by the ACF. Both indeed did an excellent job. I am trying to find the judgement again since the original link is now down.

Indeed it's drifting off topic. However and since you are about to provide some additional information, I think it's only fair to start a new thread regarding the court case.
Also, since names were named the story I was told is that the two chess personalities called for the defense were IM Robert Jamieson and IM Guy West! (both Victorians)!

MichaelBaron
17-12-2015, 09:25 AM
Aside from the one selection case 15 years ago I'm not aware of any other truly chess-related lawsuits in Australia either.

Can not believe it has been 15 years already :(. Time flies. When Depasquale turned to legal action, I can recall how amazed the chess community was as few of us regarded him as a player strong enough to be on that team. As far as I can recall, his main argument was that he finished 2nd in the Australian championship.

Ian Rout
17-12-2015, 10:47 AM
From the original thread:


Can not believe it has been 15 years already :(. Time flies. When Depasquale turned to legal action, I can recall how amazed the chess community was as few of us regarded him as a player strong enough to be on that team. As far as I can recall, his main argument was that he finished 2nd in the Australian championship.I think it was slightly more complex than that. As I recall, ACF had adjusted the normal timetable and/or process which it explained gave selectors a better opportunity to assess current form. CdP argued that his result with a PR over 2500 did in fact mean his current form put him ahead of other applicants.

The judge's ruling (again my recollection from a long time ago) boiled down to saying that explanatory notes don't over-ride the selection by-laws.

Denis_Jessop
17-12-2015, 04:56 PM
From the original thread:

I think it was slightly more complex than that. As I recall, ACF had adjusted the normal timetable and/or process which it explained gave selectors a better opportunity to assess current form. CdP argued that his result with a PR over 2500 did in fact mean his current form put him ahead of other applicants.

The judge's ruling (again my recollection from a long time ago) boiled down to saying that explanatory notes don't over-ride the selection by-laws.

"Kevin Bonham: This is drifting off-topic here but actually they were Robert Jamieson (Vic) and the late Peter Parr (NSW) and they were called as defence witnesses, ie by the ACF. Both indeed did an excellent job. I am trying to find the judgement again since the original link is now down."

I have a hard copy of the judgement. Essentially what happened was that an e-mail sent as part of the Olympiad selection referred to "current form". The selection by-law contained a criterion of "playing strength", not "current form". The plaintiff argued that the e-mail was inconsistent with the criterion in the by-laws and impliedly varied the implied contract between the parties. Gray J disagreed saying that the e-mail had not varied the contract between the plaintiff and defendant that included the selection by-law. He said also that, to the extent that "current form" was a consideration, the selectors had not overlooked it. Consequently he refused to declare the selection process invalid or that the plaintiff should have been selected - those being the orders sought by the plaintiff.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
17-12-2015, 11:38 PM
Here is the notice in question:


"It is intended to select a squad of 10 players for the Olympiad and 8
players for the Womens Olympiad. The Olympiad teams will then be selected
from these squads at the end of the Koshnitsky Chess Festival based on
players current form at the time."

from http://www.auschess.org.au/bulletins/acfb52.htm

jammo held the position of "International Secretary", a position I don't even remember existing by that name although I had just joined Council at the time.

Kevin Bonham
17-12-2015, 11:40 PM
As far as I can recall, his main argument was that he finished 2nd in the Australian championship.

It was also only equal second, with a lower PR than the player he was equal with, and in one of the smallest and weakest runnings of the tournament. The event was held at Tumbi Umbi on the NSW central coast and was not helped by cutting across Y2K New Years Eve.

MichaelBaron
18-12-2015, 12:40 AM
It was also only equal second, with a lower PR than the player he was equal with, and in one of the smallest and weakest runnings of the tournament. The event was held at Tumbi Umbi on the NSW central coast and was not helped by cutting across Y2K New Years Eve.

In any case, nobody seriously considered Depasquale as a serious contender for a spot on the Australian team at the time...other than Depasquale himself :).

Kevin Bonham
18-12-2015, 09:52 AM
Also, since names were named the story I was told is that the two chess personalities called for the defense were IM Robert Jamieson and IM Guy West! (both Victorians)!

This old Canberra Times report states Guy was indeed a witness but leaves it unclear who he was called by:

http://www.auschess.org.au/columns/ct/ct221000.htm

Denis_Jessop
18-12-2015, 12:50 PM
This old Canberra Times report states Guy was indeed a witness but leaves it unclear who he was called by:

http://www.auschess.org.au/columns/ct/ct221000.htm

Guy West was called as a witness by the plaintiff. So also was Robert Rozycki. Robert Jamieson and Peter Parr were called by the defendant (ACF). Their evidence mainly concerned the meaning of "current form" though that turned out not to be critical to the result. The judge did not accept that the use of the term "current form" in the call for applications for selection had made it a selection criterion.

DJ

triplecheck
02-01-2016, 05:19 PM
In any case, nobody seriously considered Depasquale as a serious contender for a spot on the Australian team at the time...other than Depasquale himself :).

After the players selected, Depasquale was the next player on the selectors' list.


Guy West was called as a witness by the plaintiff.


Guy West provided reams of detailed written game analysis opining that Depas was currently playing really great chess.
Which was all there, available for the judge to study, should he so desire.

Ian Rout
02-01-2016, 08:05 PM
Guy West provided reams of detailed written game analysis opining that Depas was currently playing really great chess.
Which was all there, available for the judge to study, should he so desire.
He did have some good results around then as I recall. However the judge's job was not to scrub the selections and re-do them himself, it was to assess the point of law. Given Denis's summary above that it related to a claimed contract with the applicants then the same would apply to all the other applicants, so you would think the best he could have got was an order to start again.

MichaelBaron
02-01-2016, 10:38 PM
After the players selected, Depasquale was the next player on the selectors' list.



Guy West provided reams of detailed written game analysis opining that Depas was currently playing really great chess.
Which was all there, available for the judge to study, should he so desire.

I pity the judge who had to go through Depasquale's games...

triplecheck
03-01-2016, 11:13 AM
He did have some good results around then as I recall. However the judge's job was not to scrub the selections and re-do them himself, it was to assess the point of law. Given Denis's summary above that it related to a claimed contract with the applicants then the same would apply to all the other applicants, so you would think the best he could have got was an order to start again.

The plaintiff's counsel argued that the selectors had failed to follow their instructions, since they were instructed to select the best team, and had obviously not done that because Depasquale had not been selected.

There was (I was told) an exchange along these lines:

Judge: So what are you suggesting?

Plaintiff Counsel: We are suggesting that the court order a playoff match between Depasquale and the lowest ranked selected player.

Judge: Are you seriously suggesting that a case in this court should be decided by a chess match?

Plaintiff Counsel: Er, well, no your honour, perhaps that would not be appropriate.

MichaelBaron
03-01-2016, 11:47 AM
The very fact that the case had sufficient scope to end up in court is ridiculous. If someone is not selected to be part of a soccer team or tennis team (Davis Cup), it is unthinkable that the case goes to court. Not sure how a chess case ended up there.

Bollard
10-01-2016, 09:16 PM
Wouldn't this normally be something the Court for Arbitration in Sport have within their jurisdiction? I recall that other Summer Olympic selection have at least contemplated going down this path.

Or is the point here that there was a claim for variation in contract which placed it within the jurisdiction of the civil court?

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2016, 11:02 PM
Wouldn't this normally be something the Court for Arbitration in Sport have within their jurisdiction? I recall that other Summer Olympic selection have at least contemplated going down this path.

I think that for CAS to have jurisdiction a body needs to grant it jurisdiction or be required to do so by a higher body. FIDE cases go to CAS but ACF has not granted it jurisdiction (just as well given the way FIDE loses money on court costs at CAS even when it wins.)

Denis_Jessop
11-01-2016, 04:48 PM
I think that for CAS to have jurisdiction a body needs to grant it jurisdiction or be required to do so by a higher body. FIDE cases go to CAS but ACF has not granted it jurisdiction (just as well given the way FIDE loses money on court costs at CAS even when it wins.)

According to Wikipedia "Generally speaking, a dispute may be submitted to the CAS only if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties which specifies recourse to the CAS." Certainly there is no such agreement between the ACF and Australian chess players. Moreover the CAS sits in Switzerland and appeals from its decisions must go to the Supreme Court of Switzerland so that the costs of a CAS hearing would be very substantial for an Australian.

DJ

Bollard
11-01-2016, 08:49 PM
Thanks gents,
I was particularly intrigued by the analogy with selections for other Olympiad events. Certainly if there needs to be an agreement for recourse to CAS between the selector and potential selectee then there would need to be something in advance. Perhaps it be a condition of seeking selection that any disputes are settled by an agreed mechanism.

Again, I'm not sue it would have helped in this situation where the claim appears to have been based on an improper variation of contract.