St David's rule out legal action in Eastern Counties controversy (Update)

Even though the Islanders maintain that the sanctions imposed on them for boycotting last year’s Eastern Counties competition are “unconstitutional” and “without jurisdiction”, the club’s executive and membership voted against dragging the matter before the courts in the “spirit and heritage” of the annual cricket spectacle.

A club statement read: “In an effort to promote unity and the betterment of the sport, the executive and membership of St David’s voted not to take legal action at our meeting July 8, 2011.

“Rather, we decided to invite the ECCA to reconsider its position with regard to the sanctioning of St David’s in this same spirit and to give us confirmation that it no longer seeks to uphold those sanctions as they are plainly unconstitutional.”

The ECCA imposed the sanctions last April shortly after the presidents of its respective member clubs signed off on a new hosting agreement during arbitration – without the approval of the association’s appointed mediator who “rejected” the ECCA’s request for punishments for St David’s during the binding presidential mediation.

The association decided that St David’s be placed on two years probation, be docked 15% of the monies due to them from this year’s series, make a public apology and be automatically placed in the last round.

The Islanders appealed against the sanctions, but were only successful in having the financial penalty overturned.

However, they stand by their claim that there are no rules within the ECCA constitution and/or bye-laws that provide the association with the “power” to impose such sanctions.

Article 6 (a) of the ECCA bye-laws states that “any matter which requires disciplinary action by the association shall be dealt with within 14 days of the incident”.

The sanctions that were imposed on St David’s were meted out nine months after the boycott.

The Islanders also claim they never withdrew from this year’s competition but were instead “excluded” from playing by the ECCA.

As a “last resort”, the club sought legal advice on these issues.

The club statement read: “St David’s have received clear legal advice that as a result of the ECCA’s decision we are within our rights to seek declarations from the Supreme Court that the sanctions imposed by the association are void and without jurisdiction as well as injunctive relief requiring the association to take such steps to place St David’s in the position it would have been in had these wrong decisions not been made.”

St David’s has vowed not to seek any interruptions (by legal intervention or otherwise) to this year’s series, even though they have lost “faith” in the ECCA as a “fair” and “unbiased” governing body.

The club statement read: “We cannot accept an association that ‘cherry picks’ constitutional bye-laws to enforce punishments, but operates in contravention of many specific articles within the very same document.”

In the hope of improving the ECCA before next year’s series, St David’s has drafted and supplied the association and its members with a preliminary proposal “for a restructured governing body that will give all member clubs an equal voice within the association”.

When reached ECCA president Harold Millet claimed he had yet to review St David’s lengthy statement and, as such, has declined to comment before he has done so.