Date and Time: Wednesday, 1 February 2023 5:34:00PM IST

Job Number: 189245261

Document (1)

1. Doyle v White City Stadium Ltd

Client/Matter: -None-
Search Terms: Doyle v White City Stadium Ltd 1935 1 K.B. 110
Search Type: Natural Language
Narrowed by:
Content Type Narrowed by
UK Cases -None-

| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2023 LexisNexis
 Doyle v White City Stadium Ltd
[1935] 1 KB 110, 104 LJKB 140, [1934] All ER Rep 252, 78 Sol Jo 601, 152 LT 32

Court: Court of Appeal implemented whereby boxers in case of disqualification

Judgment Date: 11/07/1934
Catchwords & Digest
CLUBS - CONSTITUTION, MANAGEMENT,
PROPERTY AND DISSOLUTION - NATURE OF
CLUBS - RULES AND BYELAWS - ALTERATION -
EFFECT OF — BINDING WITHOUT EXPRESS
NOTICE — AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY ‘ANY
FURTHER RULES AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING
RULES’
were only to receive certain expenses. At a contest, the
Board withheld an agreed payment to the plaintiff on the
ground that he was disqualified. The Court of Appeal
held that the contract with the Board was so closely
connected with a contract as to employment that it was
binding on the infant plaintiff having regard to the fact
that the contract as a whole was for his benefit.
Furthermore, notice of the altered rules was
unnecessary in order to make them binding on the
plaintiff in view of the terms of his application for a
licence.
Cases referring to this case

EMPLOYMENT - CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT - Go to table1

EMPLOYMENT UNDER CONTRACT - FORMATION
OF CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT - CAPACITY;
Cases considered by this case
CONSIDERATION; CERTAINTY - MINORS -
CONTRACT CONTAINING NON-BENEFICIAL
STIPULATIONS — WHEN SEVERABLE FROM REST Go to table2
OF CONTRACT — CONDITIONS IN LICENCE FROM
BOXING BOARD OF CONTROL
The plaintiff applied for and was granted a licence as a
boxer by the British Boxing Board of Control. In his
application, he bound himself to adhere strictly to the
rules of the Board and to abide by any further rules or
alterations to existing rules. Later, a new rule was
implemented whereby boxers in case of disqualification
were only to receive certain expenses. At a contest, the
Board withheld an agreed payment to the plaintiff on the
ground that he was disqualified. The Court of Appeal
held that the contract with the Board was so closely
connected with a contract as to employment that it was
binding on the infant plaintiff having regard to the fact
that the contract as a whole was for his benefit.
Furthermore, notice of the altered rules was
unnecessary in order to make them binding on the
plaintiff in view of the terms of his application for a
licence.

The plaintiff applied for and was granted a licence as a

boxer by the British Boxing Board of Control. In his
application, he bound himself to adhere strictly to the
rules of the Board and to abide by any further rules or
alterations to existing rules. Later, a new rule was
 Page 2 of 2
Doyle v White City Stadium Ltd

Table1 (Return to related document text)

Proform Sports Management Ltd v Proactive Sports 26/07/2006

ChD
Management Ltd

[2006] EWHC 2812 (Ch), [2006] EWHC 2903 (Ch), [2007] 1 All ER 542, [2007] 1 All ER
(Comm) 356, [2007] 1 Bus LR 93, (2006) Times, 13 November, [2006] All ER (D) 38
(Nov)
Distinguished

Sun Life Assurance of Canada v Jervis 01/03/1944

HL

[1944] AC 111, [1944] 1 All ER 469, 170 LT 345

Distinguished

Table1 (Return to related document text)

Table2 (Return to related document text)

De Francesco v Barnum 05/08/1890

ChD

(1890) 45 Ch D 430, [1886-90] All ER Rep 414, 63 LT 438

Considered

Rhodes, Re, Rhodes v Rhodes 17/02/1890

CA

(1890) 44 Ch D 94, [1886-90] All ER Rep 871, 62 LT 342

Considered

Table2 (Return to related document text)

End of Document