Dean Lonergan's statement on Court decision. No knockout blow Friday's decision in the Supreme Court at Brisbane was no knockout blow for Opetaia. At best it was a Pyrrhic victory, a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. D & L Events sought an interlocutory injunction against Jai Opetaia to prevent him from terminating their promotion agreement. Although the Court found the balance of convenience sat with Opetaia the second and more important orders that D & L sought were made. They are to the effect that the dispute is to continue expeditiously with D & L Events to file their statement of claim by 24 March 2023. The decision yesterday was not final. The matter has a long way to go in the Court. Mr Tim Matthews MBE KC appearing for D & L said that his client will be proceeding with the litigation as ordered in an expeditious manner given the circumstances of urgency to minimise damage to Opetaia continuing to run foul of International Boxing Federation rules. Mr Lonergan of D & L described it as a Pyrrhic victory as included in the evidence before the Court was correspondence to both D & L and Michael Francis, the long-time manager and friend of Opetaia, from Daryl J Peoples, the president of the IBF, which confirmed that continuation of the dispute which the Court has ordered will render Jai Opetaia unavailable. The wording in the IBF correspondence was unambiguous. Whether Opetaia signs with another promoter or not, pursuant to IBF Rules, until his contractual dispute with D & L is resolved he will be considered unavailable to defend his title. He will be considered unavailable for the mandatory defence of his world title, and remains at risk under IBF Rule 5.D.1 (b) of having recognition of his title withdrawn.
You can't read much into what either side has said in relation to the court proceedings. The substantive issue is presumably whether the contract that was on foot between D&L Events & Jai Opetaia has been breached by either party. Does D&L losing its TV deal mean its promotional agreement with Opetaia was breached & therefore Opetaia had a right to terminate the contract or did the contract remain on foot in which case Opetaia would have breached the agreement by wrongly terminating? Those presumably are the substantive issues the remedy for which is damages. Based on the news report above, D&L brought interlocutory proceedings seeking to prevent Opetaia from terminating their agreement. That's been dismissed. Not sure if further interlocutory proceedings could be brought by D&L seeking to prevent Opetaia from signing with another promoter or fighting at all if & when he does sign. If not, Opetaia would be free to resume his career subject to any position the IBF may assume having regard to their own rules (alluded to above). Not sure why they would want to get involved. Their interest lies in getting paid & if Opetaia is fighting, they will be.
Update to the above based on another article. D&L's application was for an injunction to prevent Opetaia from signing with another promoter. Because it's been dismissed, Opetaia is free to do so. The substantive issue of whether a breach of contract has occurred would be for D&L Events to pursue through the courts if they feel that's the case. The press release above indicates that they will but it would be a matter for them to make application to the court & proceed from there. Irrespective of how that plays out, Opetaia appears free to sign with another promoter & continue his boxing career. So long as they can collect sanctioning fees, the IBF should be happy with that. The short version is "and STILL...".
Was reading last week in the Murdoch press that it mentioned Jai was returning to the ring next month in Melbourne. I heard that maybe No Limit are doing a show next month...in Melbourne. Gawd, really hope he doesnt sign with No Limit
No agenda. I read boxing news from a variety of online publications What would you prefer I refer to it as?
I know a few things about Australia: Olivia, Evonne Googalong, Kylie Minogue, Men at Work, Paul Hogan, Luc Longley, Michelle Timms (ahh Timmie, how we love you here in Phoenix!), Sandy Brondello, the Australian Open, Kangaroos, Koalas, Boomerangs, Lionel Rose, Jeff Fenech, Kostya Tszyu, Johnny Famechon, Qantas, Ansett (and Bob Ansett, I wrote his Wikipedia article), Coles, Hungry Jack's and Bunnings. Apart from Tim, how is Australian boxing nowadays? Are national titles still a major thing there?
I assume you know why they call it hungry jack's. I mean even if you didn't it's pretty obvious why, anyway.
Well, from what I learned it was called that when Burger King bought the company, and BK decided that since you guys are more familiar with that name they should keep it named that, As far as the origins of the name......Im not sure.... Oh, and being a bit of a Beauty Contests connoisseur too,...I also know Jennifer Hawkins!
.....in 1966, an American immigrant registered the 'Burger King' trademark which had already expanded to 17 locations across the country. Unable to buy the trademark, Cowin and Burger King moved ahead with the name “Hungry Jack's” instead. The first Hungry Jack's would open on April 18th, 1971.
