Spangas wrote:http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/sa/SASC/2013/143.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=%22johncock%22
This is the case where Barry Johncock Jr. had his life ban from Port Lincoln FL over-turned. If Callum has the money it would be worth putting his appeal through the Supreme Court. It's not right that a young man is handed a life-ban. Obviously, not identical facts (Johncock was paid to coach as well as play) but his equitable right to enjoyment from the game he loves should never be taken from him.
"Even though the plaintiff could be compensated in money for any loss of income from coaching, he could not easily be compensated in that way for the loss of enjoyment of playing the game whinotice requirementch has been such a major part of his life for some 23 years."
That was a temporary injunction allowing Johncock to play in a Grand Final. Similar to what the Swans did in 96 for Dunkley.
The Court did not make a final determination (although it would seem that eventually the matter was settled to the effect Johncock did not receive a life ban).
Also relevantly the issues relevant to the determination of the injunction were the notification requirements in 3.2.1, not whether a Community Football League has the power/right to ban someone
per se.
Furthermore, the League in the Johncock case didn't appear but would seem to have elected to abide by the Court's decision in any event. My suspicion is that a contested hearing would have a different outcome.