PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
2009 No.

BETWEEN –
JOHN EDWARD SMITH
Plaintiff
and
RICHMOND FOOTBALL CLUB LTD
Defendant

STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Date of Document: May 2009
Filed on behalf of: The Plaintiff
Prepared by:
SUE, GRABITT & RUN

Solicitors Code: 12345
Lawyers & Consultants DX: 123
William Street Chambers Tel: 9679 1234
206 William Street Fax: 9679 1233
Melbourne Vic 3000 Ref: Mr Run

1. The plaintiff is and was at all relevant times a member of the Richmond Football Club.

2. The plaintiff sues on his own behalf and on behalf of those classes of persons who in
reliance on the representations alleged herein –
(a) purchased memberships of the Richmond Football Club;
(b) purchased Richmond Football Club merchandise;
(c) attended matches in which the Richmond Football Club has played and incurred
expense in connection therewith; and
(d) placed wagers with the TAB, corporate bookmakers such as Betfair and
Sportingbet, and other bookmakers.

3. The defendant is and was at all relevant times –
2
(a) a duly registered corporation;
(b) the operator of the Richmond Football Club (“the Tigers”);
(c) a member of the Australian Football League (“AFL”);
(d) engaged in trade and commerce; and
(e) a trading corporation for the purposes of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (“the Act”).

4. At all relevant times the defendant employed Terry Wallace (“Wallace”) as its coach.

5. At about the commencement of the 2009 AFL Premiership home and away football
season the defendant made the following representations (“the representations”) in
trade or commerce –
(a) Wallace’s position as coach was safe for the 2009 season;
(b) Richmond had set itself to play in the finals in 2009;
(c) the Tigers were ready to break a finals drought which had stretched from 2001;
(d) Richmond would play the sort of football it played at the end of 2008;
(e) Ben Cousins was mentally and physically fit for his AFL comeback;
(f) Ben Cousins’s history of substance abuse would not have any impact in terms of
fatiguing or causing extra problems;
(g) Richmond Football Club would put on a great display for its supporters in 2009;
(h) Richmond would finish higher on the ladder than it did in 2008; and
(i) in 2009 the Tigers would improve at all levels.

6. Each of the representations related to a future matter.

7. The plaintiff relies upon s 51A of the Act and says that the defendant had no reasonable
grounds for making the representations.

8. In reliance on the representations and induced thereby the plaintiff and the members of
the classes alleged in paragraph 2 hereof –
(a) purchased memberships of the Richmond Football Club;
(b) purchased football cards;
(c) purchased Richmond Football Club team posters;
(d) Purchased other merchandise, such as Richmond guernseys and fridge magnets;
3
(e) attended matches in which the Richmond Football Club has played and incurred
expenses in connection therewith; and
(f) placed wagers with the TAB, corporate bookmakers such as Betfair and
Sportingbet, and other bookmakers in connection with the results of AFL
matches involving Richmond.

9. In consequence of the foregoing, the plaintiff and the classes referred to in paragraph 2
hereof have suffered loss and damage.
Particulars
(a) Cost of memberships.
(b) Cost of merchandise, such as football cards, team posters and fridge magnets.
(c) Cost of attending matches and incidental expenses incurred in connection
therewith, including train fares, donations to the Salvation Army, purchase of
Richmond Cheer Squad raffle tickets, Herald Sun newspaper, Football Record,
pies, chips and beer.
(d) The lost opportunity to place winning bets at the TAB and with bookmakers in
connection with AFL games.
AND THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS –
A. Damages.
B. Interest.
C. Costs.
………………………………..
Solicitors for the Plaintiff
INDORSED ON THE WRIT