THE HIGH COURT
			4708p 2000

BETWEEN

DUNDALK AFC INTERIM COMPANY LIMITED T/A
DUNDALK FOOTBALL CLUB
			PLAINTIFF
AND
THE F.A.I. NATIONAL LEAGUE T/A AS THE EIRCOM LEAGUE
			DEFENDANT
AND KILKENNY CITY FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
			NOTICE PARTY

Judgment of Finnegan J. delivered the 2nd day of May, 2000.

	The First named Defendant (“the league”) consists of two divisions, the Premier Division and the First Division.  At the end of the 1999/2000 season the bottom two clubs in the Premier Division will be relegated to the First Division and the top two teams in the First Division promoted to the Premier Division.  The third last team in the Premier Division and the third team in the First Division will play off, the winner being in the Premier Division for the next season and the loser in the First Division.  In this action it is sought to establish whether the Plaintiff (“Dundalk”) or the Second named Defendant (“Kilkenny”) has finished third in the First Division and so is entitled to a place in the play off and the opportunity for promotion to the Premier Division.  
	On the 13th November, 1999 Kilkenny played Limerick and included in their team Mr. Fran Carter.  Mr. Carter had been signed by Kilkenny from Shelbourne F.C.  However, he had previously been a retained player with Galway United and it appears that at the 13th November, 1999 Galway United considered him to be still a retained player.  The matter came to the attention of the league and a meeting was arranged for the league’s premises on the 13th November, 1999 at which the attendance of Mr. Carter, Mr. Pat Byrne, Kilkenny’s manager and Mr. James Rhatigan, Kilkenny’s secretary/general manager was requested.  Mr. Rhatigan did not in fact attend the meeting but Mr. Christopher Bateman, Kilkenny’s representative on the league’s management committee represented the club in his place.  The letter summoning Kilkenny to the meeting is dated 22nd November, 1999 and is in the following terms:-

	“Dear Jim,

	A meeting has been arranged in the F.A.I. Office at 18 Merrion Square, Dublin 2 at 4.00 pm on Tuesday, 13th November, 1999 by the league officers to discuss the signing of Fran Carter for Kilkenny City FC.

	Please attend and ensure that Mr. Pat Byrne and Mr. Fran Carter are also in attendance.

	Yours sincerely.”

	When the representatives of Kilkenny attended for the meeting they were met by Mr. Michael Hyland, the Honorary Chairman of the league and Mr. Donal Crowther, Executive Secretary of the league.  At the meeting the circumstances of Mr. Carter’s transfer were explained and discussed.  Mr. Carter was then asked to put his name and address on a blank sheet of paper.  Mr. Hyland then informed the Kilkenny representatives that the signature on the registration form was not that of the player.  Mr. Pat Byrne frankly admitted that he had signed the transfer form with Mr. Carter’s name and said that he was authorised to do so.  
	Following that meeting Mr. Hyland and Mr. Crowther consulted with Mr. Menton, the Honorary Secretary of the league and as a result a decision was reached which was communicated to Kilkenny by letter dated 1st December, 1999 in the following terms:-

	“Dear Jim,

	The officers of the Eircom league met with the representatives of Kilkenny City Football Club to discuss the signing of the player, Fran Carter, and also his playing in the match Kilkenny City -v- Limerick FC on Friday 12th November, 1999.  I have to inform you that the registration form regarding this player does not conform with Rule 16(A)(ii) and thus this rule was violated by Kilkenny City Football Club. 

	As per Rule 16(A)(vi) Kilkenny City Football Club are deducted three (3) points and fined a sum of £300 (three hundred pounds) for falsification of registration form.

	Yours sincerely.”

	The response of Kilkenny to this letter was to institute proceedings entitled The High Court 1999 No. 12838p Kilkenny City Football Club Limited Plaintiff and Donal Crowther Defendant, the defendant being the nominee of the league.  A Notice of Motion was issued returnable for the 21st February, 2000 the principal relief sought being an Order restoring to Kilkenny the three points deducted.  At that stage the action was compromised on terms that all issues in dispute between the parties should be referred to an arbitrator to be agreed between the parties.  The parties agreed on Mr. Milo Corcoran as arbitrator.  The arbitration hearing took place on the 13th April, 2000 and Mr. Corcoran gave his decision on that evening.  His decision was that the match between Kilkenny and Limerick should be replayed.  The match was replayed, Kilkenny winning the same and so they regained the three points which had been deducted.
	The position now is that Kilkenny have finished in third place in the First Division with Dundalk one point behind in fourth place.  
	The Eircom league, Rule 16, deals with registration of players.  The relevant portions of the rule are as follows:-

	“16(A)(i)  To be eligible to play in matches under the jurisdiction of the FAI National League, all players must be properly registered. 
	            (ii) A player is properly registered when he has signed a registration form, the signature to be properly witnessed, and has been registered with the registration secretary.
	             (vi) Any club playing an unregistered player or players in any match under the jurisdiction of the league shall be fined in the case of either a Premier or First Division of the National League match a sum not exceeding £1,000 (one thousand pounds) per player.....  and will forfeit three points per match in  which a non-registered player plays.”

	Rule 16 does not provides for who is to make a decision under Rule 16(A)(vi). Accordingly, this would appear to be a function of the management committee under Rule 5.  However, Rule 5 also provides that the honorary officers, that is to say, the chairman, the honorary treasurer and the executive secretary of the league shall have all the powers of the management committee in dealing with matters under the jurisdiction of the league which may arise between the board of control and/or management committee meetings.  It would appear that in the present case the matter purports to have been dealt with by the honorary officers, two of whom attended the meeting with Kilkenny, the third being consulted by them for the purposes of a decision.  The penalty for a breach of Rule 16 in terms of the forfeiture of three points is mandatory and there is no discretion in the management committee or the honorary officers in relation to the same.  The rules contain no provision for the reference of disputes to arbitration.  Again, there is no provision for matches to be replayed in the event of a breach of Rule 16 as an alternative to the forfeiture of three points.  In these circumstances if the honorary officers were correct in finding that Kilkenny played a non-registered player then it was mandatory that Kilkenny should forfeit three points: the reference to arbitration and the carrying out of the direction of the arbitrator to replay the match are outside the rules and are nullities.  The rules of the league represent a contract between the league and the teams playing in it and an arrangement made between the league and one club playing in it cannot adversely affect the rights under the rules of another club.  
	This matter accordingly can be determined by examining whether or not Mr. Carter was eligible to play as a properly registered player on the relevant date.  If he was eligible the three points deducted by the honorary officers should be restored to Kilkenny. 
	Rule 16(A)(i) provides that to be eligible to play in a match a player must be properly registered.  Rule 16(A)(ii) defines properly registered.  A player is properly registered when -

a.	He has signed a registration form.
b.	The signature is properly witnessed.
c.	The form has been registered with the registration secretary.

	The registration form was registered with the registration secretary.  It is necessary then to see if Mr. Carter signed the registration and form and if so was the signature properly witnessed.
	Both Mr. Byrne and Mr. Carter in their Affidavits say that Mr. Byrne was authorised to sign the registration form on Mr. Carter’s behalf and this is nowhere contradicted.  In London County Council -v- Vitamins Limited, (1955) 2 All ER 229, the Court had to consider the effect of clauses in tenancy agreements which required certain notices to be signed.  In his judgment Romer LJ at page 232 said -

	“It is established in my judgment as a general proposition that at common law a person sufficiently ‘signs’ a document if it is signed in his name and with his authority by somebody else and in such case the agent’s signature is treated as being that of the principal.  That this is so is recognised by Blackburn J in R. -v- Kent JJ, (1873) L.R. 8 Q.B. 306, by Lord Esher M.R. in R. -v- Cowper, (1890) 24 Q.B.D. 533 and by the Divisional Court in France -v- Dutton, (1891) 2 Q.B. 208.  The definition of ‘signature’ in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary is also in conformity with the principal.”

	The authority need not be in writing: Coles -v- Trecothick, (1804) 9 VES 234.
	The definition of ‘signed; signature’ in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary is as follows:-

	“(1)	Speaking generally a signature is the writing, or otherwise affixing of a person’s name, or a mark to represent his name, by himself, or by his authority.... with the intention of authenticating a document as being that of, or as binding on, the person whose name or mark is so written or affixed....”

	In R. -v- Kent JJ, L.R. 8 Q.B. at p. 307, Blackburn J. said:-

	“No doubt at common law, where a person authorises another to sign for him, the signature of the person so signing is the signature of the person authorising it.”

	That being the common law it is necessary to look at Rule 16(A)(ii) and see if in its context or in its context within Rule 16(A) as a whole or in the rules as a whole, the word should be construed as requiring a personal signature.  I see nothing in the context here which requires an exception to be made to the common law rule.  Accordingly, the registration form was signed by Mr. Carter.
	As to the witnessing of the signature of Mr. Fran Carter on the registration form, no objection has been raised by the league or by Dundalk to the same but in the interest of bringing finality to this matter I will deal briefly with the same.  In Re. Gibson, deceased, (1949) 2 All ER 90 at 91, Pearce J said -

	“The normal meaning of ‘witness’ is one who is a spectator of an incident or one who is present at an incident.”

	A party to a document cannot be a witness to his own signature.  Mr. Byrne in his representative capacity signed the registration form: as a matter of a law this was a signing not by Mr. Byrne but by Mr. Carter.  Mr. Byrne is not a party to the registration form.  In his personal capacity Mr. Byrne signed the form as witness having (to use the words of Pearce J) being present at the incident, namely, present when the form was signed by Mr. Carter.  I take the view that Mr. Byrne was entitled so to do and I have been unable to find any authority to the contrary.  It is not uncommon for a person who signs a deed in one capacity to witness the signature of another party to the deed and this practice has never been found to be ineffective.  Accordingly, I am satisfied that the signature of the registration form by Mr. Carter was properly witnessed.
	Having so found, I find that Mr. Carter was a properly registered player with Kilkenny on the relevant date.  No offence was committed by Kilkenny and there is no basis upon which points could be deducted from them.  Accordingly, I dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim.