The Disputes Resolution Authority has ruled that the proposed transfer of Laois U-21 captain Brian Daly from Barrowhouse to St Joseph’s must be heard again.
Following a hearing last month, the DRA says that the case is to be put before a specially constituted Laois CCC as appointed by the Management Committee of Laois County Board.
They also added that the membership of such Laois CCC be drawn from independent members nominated by Leinster Council not including the members who decided the Daly’s original transfer request.
LaoisToday understands that this will be heard on Thursday night.
Daly’s initial application was heard by Laois CCC on March 6 this year but was refused “pursuant to the Rule 6.5 T.O. 2016 and Laois GAA Transfer Byelaws 6 (e) and (f), with deliberation given to the evidence provided at the hearing and due consideration given to the negative effect the transfer would have on his Home Club”.
Daly appealed the decision to the Laois Hearings Committee – citing that he believed the CCC had misapplied the rules quoted above.
The Laois HC heard the appeal on March 28 and notified Daly the following day that his appeal had been dismissed.
The DRA then became involved when Daly appealed his case to them.
The Laois-U21 captain appealed the decision to refuse his move on two grounds:
Firstly, that the Laois CCC and Laois HC decided his case under the 2017 Transfer Laws while he should have been dealt with under the 2016 laws.
And secondly, that Laois HC was in breach of Rule 7.11(o) (2016) – which sets out the scope and hearing of appeals from, inter alia, the Competition Control Committee to the Hearings Committee – in permitting the introduction of evidence in relation
to the claimant’s address or residence at the appeal hearing.
Daly claimed that the two bodies had applied the 2017 Laois Transfer Bye Laws to his transfer request and that these 2017 Bye Laws had been ratified by a meeting of the GAA Central Council on February 28 – a month after his transfer application had been submitted.
The 2017 Bye Laws had therefore been applied retrospectively to his case.
The big difference between the 2017 and 2016 Bye Laws is clause 6(e) which contains a new provision requiring Laois CCC in considering transfer applications “to give due consideration to the negative effect, if any, it may have on the player’s First Club.”
Daly claimed that he had been prejudiced by the consideration of his transfer request pursuant to this amended provision both at first instance and on appeal.
The Laois CCC and HC accepted that they had applied the 2017 Bye Laws and that these bye laws had been ratified on February 28 – after the closing date for transfer applications.
However, they denied that this had caused any prejudice to Daly, stating that although the new laws had a clause relating to the effect upon a players first club, the original laws gave the CCC a wide discretion to consider all consequences of the transfer request including the effect on the club the player wishes to leave.
The Laois Transfer Bye Laws had been amended to comply with a direction from the DRA Tribunal following the transfer of a juvenile player from Park-Ratheniska to Portlaoise – which had initially been rejected by the Laois CCC.
But the DRA found in Daly’s favour saying: “the Tribunal considers that the claimant’s transfer request ought to have been decided pursuant to the Laois Transfer Bye Laws in force on the closing date for transfer applications, that is, the 2016 Bye Laws, and not the bye laws in force.”
Daly also argued that the Laois Hearing Committee had acted wrongly by permitting the introduction of evidence to his permanent residence in breach of 7.11, which states that “an Appeal shall be limited to the matters raised in the Appellant’s Appeal as originally lodged”.
At the appeal before Laois HC, Dalys said that the chairperson of Laois CCC, Gerry Kavanagh, questioned the permanent address given by Daly on his transfer request stating that the house at this address was derelict.
Daly produced an electricity bill for that address and a member of Laois HC questioned the number of electric units.
Since the issue of permanent residence is dealt with under
bye-law 6(c) but the claimant appealed in relation to bye-laws 6(e) and 6(f) only, Daly submitted that the introduction of this evidence was in breach of rule 7.11(o).
But the DRA did not find in his favour in this incidence as they felt the evidence produced here was relevant to the overall case and fell within the scope of the appeal.
In making the decision that Brian Daly should have his transfer heard again, the Tribunal decided to award him all his costs.
They said: “The Tribunal directs that the costs and expenses of the DRA, as calculated by the DRA secretary, be discharged in full and solely by Laois CCC.
“The Tribunal directs that the deposit paid by the claimant of €1,000 be refunded by the DRA Secretary to the claimant.”