THE HIGH COURT
			1995 No. 8309p
BETWEEN
BARRY HEARN AND MATCHROOM BOXING LIMITED
			PLAINTIFFS
AND
STEPHEN COLLINS
			DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice O'Sullivan delivered the 3rd day of  February, 1998.

THE PARTIES
	The first named Plaintiff (hereinafter "Barry Hearn") claims to be entitled to 25% of the Defendant's earnings for the year ending on the 10th May, 1996 less appropriate deductions as the Defendant's manager.  The second named Plaintiff (hereinafter "Matchroom Boxing") was at all material times under the effective management and control of Barry Hearn and is a co-Plaintiff in these proceedings on the basis that it is entitled to enforce an agreement dated 17th February, 1995 (hereinafter called "the bout agreement") for the benefit of Barry Hearn.  
	The Defendant (hereinafter "Stephen Collins" or "Collins") is the World Boxing Organisation (hereinafter "WBO") super middleweight champion of the world, having attained this title when he defeated Chris Eubank at Millstreet, County Cork on the 18th March, 1995.  
	The amount of the Plaintiff's claim is not particularised and the Plaintiff accordingly claims an Order for an account.  
	In his defence Stephen Collins pleads that the management agreement between himself and Barry Hearn of the 9th May, 1994 (hereinafter "the management agreement") expired on the 8th May, 1995 and was not extended so that there was no agreement in place during the period in respect of which Barry Hearn claims.  It is further pleaded that a second agreement dated the 15th January, 1995 (hereinafter called "the manuscript agreement") never acquired legal effect and at the hearing it was further claimed that if it did, it ceased to have effect shortly after its operative date so that it too did not extend to cover the relevant period.  In respect of a third agreement, namely the bout agreement, the Defendant pleads that Barry Hearn is not a party to that agreement and is not entitled to rely on it either in his own capacity or at the suit of Matchroom Boxing.  In the alternative it is pleaded that if the management agreement was extended then Barry Hearn was in breach of his obligations thereunder thereby entitling Stephen Collins to terminate the agreement, which he did by letter of 6th June, 1995 which brought to an end any obligations, including the obligation to pay fees, owed by him to 
Barry Hearn.  

THE PROCEEDINGS
	The instant proceedings were preceded by English proceedings in the summer and early autumn of 1995 wherein Barry Hearn as Plaintiff sought mareva style Orders against Stephen Collins and other Defendants.  Barry Hearn was unsuccessful in those proceedings primarily because the learned Judge held that he was bound by the jurisdiction clause in the bout agreement whereby the parties (which he held included Barry Hearn) consented to the jurisdiction of the High Court in Dublin.  
	In the present proceedings the Plaintiffs claim that Barry Hearn had a management agreement (the management agreement) with Stephen Collins for a year commencing on the 11th May, 1994.  It is further claimed that by agreement dated the 15th January, 1995 (the manuscript agreement) the management agreement was extended for a further year in the event, which happened, that Stephen Collins beat Chris Eubank as therein specified.  It is further claimed that by an agreement dated the 17th February, 1995 (the bout agreement) the management agreement was extended on the same or a similar basis as specified in the manuscript agreement.  The entitlement of Matchroom Boxing to claim a management charge on behalf of Barry Hearn is articulated by means of various legal devices set out  in the Statement of Claim to which I will return later.  
	In his defence Stephen Collins claims that the management agreement expired on the 10th May, 1994 and was not extended.  The manuscript agreement never came into existence because a pre-condition dealing with legal advice was not satisfied and in evidence Stephen Collins claimed that if it did come into existence it remained effective only for a short period and ceased to have effect when the bout between himself and Chris Eubank was changed from Belfast in February, 1995 to Millstreet, County Cork in March, 1995.  With regard to the bout agreement, Stephen Collins claims that this agreement is between himself and Matchroom Boxing and neither Barry Hearn nor Matchroom Boxing is entitled to sue him on foot of it for the management charges.
	In the alternative to the foregoing Stephen Collins pleads that he was entitled to serve notice of termination by letter of 6th June, 1995 by reason of the breach of obligation of Barry Hearn and that he had no obligations towards Barry Hearn after that date.
	A reply in general form was delivered to that defence which, inter alia, denied that Barry Hearn acted in breach of any obligations.  
	The case was set down for trial in October of 1996.  In August, 1997 a Notice for Particulars was delivered by the Plaintiffs' Solicitors which sought, inter alia, details of the allegations of breach.  No reply was furnished to this notice and the case came on for hearing on Wednesday the 15th October, 1997 in the absence of any details of the breach of agreement alleged against Barry Hearn.  
	In the course of cross-examination of the Plaintiffs' witnesses, however, details of the alleged breaches did emerge and at the conclusion of the Plaintiffs' case Counsel for the Plaintiffs sought leave of the Court to amend the reply by the addition of a number of paragraphs which dealt in particular with the issues of alleged conflict of interest (arising by reason of the management by Barry Hearn of other fighters including Chris Eubank), implied variation of the management agreement, waiver and estoppel.  After legal argument I allowed this amendment and also gave leave to Stephen Collins to resume the cross-examination of Barry Hearn in light of the fresh issues now joined.
	On the eleventh day of the trial (Tuesday the 4th November, 1997) Counsel for Stephen Collins informed the Court that certain documentation had come into the hands of his Solicitor on the previous Friday comprising copy correspondence from Barry Hearn to a Mr Francisco Valcarcel then President of the WBO which was relevant to the issues in the present case, had not been discovered, and suggested the existence of earlier correspondence passing between the same parties.  On that day Barry Hearn undertook to have Matchroom Boxing institute a search to see if any such earlier documentation existed and two days later produced documentation commencing with a copy letter from Barry Hearn to Mr Valcarcel dated 
7th june, 1995 which documentation will hereafter be referred to as "the Valcarcel correspondence".    The subsequent cross-examination of Barry Hearn included cross-examination arising out of the Valcarcel correspondence.
	Quite apart from major factual issues which I will identify and having set out a summary of the evidence in this case, it is clear from the foregoing that a number of legal issues arise for determination as follows:

LEGAL ISSUES
	1.	Was the management agreement extended 
		(a)	by the manuscript agreement, or
		(b)	by the bout agreement?
	2.	Did the manuscript agreement come into effect or was it subject to a pre-condition that Stephen Collins be given legal advice which pre-condition was not satisfied; alternatively was it unconscionable on the basis that Barry Hearn procured Stephen Collins' agreement by undue pressure?
	3.	If the manuscript agreement came into effect did it cease to have effect when the Belfast bout was replaced by a fight between the same two fighters in Millstreet, County Cork?
	4.	Was the management agreement extended by the bout agreement and if so is Barry Hearn entitled to sue on foot of it?
	5.	Is Matchroom Boxing entitled to sue on foot of the bout agreement on behalf of Barry Hearn?
	6.	What was the effect in law (if any) of Stephen Collins' letter dated the 6th June, 1995 to Barry Hearn expressed as formal notice of termination of the previous agreement between these parties? 
	7.	Was Barry Hearn guilty of any breach of obligation (including fundamental breach) such as would disentitle him to claim his management fees or such as brought to an end any contractual relationship between him and Stephen Collins?

THE EVIDENCE
	Before dealing with these legal issues I intend in the next portion of this Judgment to summarise the evidence given by each of the witnesses.

BARRY HEARN
	Barry Hearn's evidence can be summarised as follows:-
	He is and has been for several years a successful promoter and manager of professional sportsmen.  As manager he looks after the career of the individual professional:  as a promoter he promotes the particular event and generally pays all expenses.  He has managed professional snooker players such as Steve Davis and in early 1993 enjoyed great influence with television and with the WBO.  Since the late '80s he had managed Chris Eubank who was the WBO World Super Middleweight Champion immediately before Stephen Collins.  In 1993 he had a stable of big boxing names such as Chris Eubank, Chris Pyatt, Nigel Benn, and Herbie Hyde.  
	He had seen Stephen Collins when fighting under the management of the Petronelli Brothers in Boston.  He was impressed by him as a good fighter who attracted an Irish crowd.  Subsequently Stephen Collins had come under the management of Barney Eastwood who was not able to deliver television coverage which is essential if big money is to be made.  Stephen Collins had lost his attraction back home because he had gone to the United States and he was never a big crowd puller. His career had not gone as well as it might have and when Stephen Collins came to visit him in January of 1993 he was disillusioned and almost valueless having lost two previous fights.  They had a long talk.  Stephen Collins was anxious to be trained by Freddy King who was working for Barry Hearn.  Stephen Collins needed careful management.  He needed a series of relatively easy fights which he would be certain to win and thereby to earn a shot at a title fight.  At this meeting he agreed on a handshake to manage Collins.
	Stephen Collins was a very hard trainer and won a series of fights at relatively low purses.  On the 26th June, 1993 he won a fight which entitled him to a "Junior" World Championship, namely, the Penta Continental Middleweight title.  This enabled Barry Hearn to persuade the WBO to establish Collins as a mandatory challenger for the official middleweight title then held by Chris Pyatt.  Meanwhile Collins successfully defended his "Junior" title on the 30th November, 1993 by beating Wayne Elliot.  In January of 1994 he was established as the mandatory challenger for Chris Pyatt's title.  
	The holder of an official title must accept challenges within a stipulated period normally from the number one contender who is the mandatory challenger.
	The Collins/Pyatt fight which was held on the 11th May, 1994 went to "purse offers".  This is a system which establishes the market value of any particular bout where the managers of the fighters and the promoter cannot agree a purse.  Promoters who are officially registered with the organising body (in this case the WBO) are entitled to bid.  There is a minimum price but no maximum.  The title holder usually gets 75% of the purse and the challenger 25% (except when the title holder is fighting in a foreign country where he is entitled to 80%).  In the case of the Pyatt fight, Stephen Collins' 25% share of the purse bid was £50,000 of which Barry Hearn received £13,500 as his manager's fee (25% of Collins' earnings).  This was the only money which Barry Hearn ever received to date from 
Stephen Collins.
	Before this Collins had had a fight in Belfast which both Collins and Freddy King wanted him to have but Barry Hearn was against it because there was too much risk.  The purse was small and Collins had too much to lose.  
	Such was Barry Hearn's influence with the WBO at this stage that, contrary to their practice up to then, he persuaded that organisation to conduct the weigh-in the night before the Pyatt fight as distinct from the day of the fight.  This was of great value to Collins who was heavy for a middleweight.  He had to train hard and sweat and dehydrate in order to make the weight.  The advantage of holding the weigh-in the night before was that between that and the time of the actual bout itself Collins was able to put on weight and he looked like a giant when he entered the ring in Sheffield on the 11th May.  Barry Hearn claims credit that within eighteen months he had brought Collins from the situation of being a disillusioned and nearly valueless fighter to the point where he was now the WBO middleweight world champion.  
	Prior to the bout on the 9th May he had required a written agreement with Collins.  A standard British boxing board form of agreement had been furnished to his solicitor but Collins always remained affiliated to the Boxing Union of Ireland (BUI) and this standard form was not appropriate.  His solicitor drafted the agreement ("the management agreement") which was ultimately signed.  It came into effect if and when (as happened) Stephen Collins beat Chris Pyatt.
	Collins was brilliant on the night he beat Pyatt.  It was the nicest moment between the two of them.  They celebrated in Sheffield where the fight took place;  Hearn laid on a limousine for the four to five hour journey back to Romford and there was a party there the following night.  This was the achievement of Collins' ambitions and Hearn could see it in his eyes that he felt a success.  
	Collins was a hungry champion:  he wanted work and kept pressing for fights.  An opportunity arose to fight Lonnie Beasley in Hong Kong for a purse of £100,000.  Stephen Collins trained in Herbie Hyde's training camp in Norwich.  He went there gladly to avail of the services of Freddy King whom he shared as trainer with Herbie Hyde.  They all went to Hong Kong some ten days or two weeks before the venue.  The whole trip turned out to be a disaster because the promoters, Top Rank Inc., a well known American promoter, failed to comply with the financial requirements guaranteeing the purse and the whole venue had to be called off.  The costs were borne by Matchroom Boxing.  Stephen Collins' complaint in these proceedings that Barry Hearn advised him not to get on the scales after the cancellation is a pointless one because the argument that this would have given Collins legal leverage to compel a rematch or compensation was overtaken by the event that the rematch was arranged (as the promoters were obliged to do) for Boston in December.  Stephen Collins travelled out there but was again unfortunate because he contracted a virus which meant that he had to withdraw from the bout. 
	Barry Hearn was aware from September 1994 that his great rival Frank Warren was interested in Collins and had made direct approaches to him.  In the case of one approach where Warren was suggesting a bout between Collins and Sean Cummins for a purse of £100,000 he advised Collins not to accept this promotion.  Freddy King agreed with this advice on the basis that Frank Warren's company could not be trusted and Stephen Collins accepted this advice.  
	Collins' great opportunity came when Ray Close failed a medical and had to pull out of a bout with the then WBO super middleweight world champion Chris Eubank.  Barry Hearn saw the opportunity for Collins to replace Close as a contender for this title.  It was a wonderful opportunity.  Part of the background was what was known as the "B sky B" agreement whereby B Sky B contracted with Barry Hearn's company for eight fights with Chris Eubank for a total fee amounting to some £6 million together with ancillary rights.  Chris Eubank wanted easy opponents and at this point Sky Television were pressing for a more credible opponent for Eubank.  Stephen Collins was a credible opponent and was also himself hungry for a major bout.  
	Barry Hearn insisted, however, on two conditions, namely, that if Collins lost he would still retain his middleweight title and, secondly, that Sky would accept him as a replacement for Ray Close. Both these conditions were met.  The fight which was originally to occur in February was, however, postponed to the 18th March, 1995 in Millstreet, 
Co. Cork because Collins had not yet fully recovered from his virus and sought this delay.
	This was the context in relation to which the agreement known as the "manuscript agreement" came into being.  It was signed on the 15th January, 1995.  Barry Hearn was aware of rumours that Collins was talking to Frank Warren.  They met on Sunday 15th January for approximately an hour.  Collins insisted on receiving £150,000 for himself out of the fight and Barry Hearn agreed to waive his management fee so that Collins would receive the entire £150,000.  Collins did not insist on or seek legal advice.  There was an urgency that an agreement be signed to satisfy the scheduling of Sky Television.
	Subsequently it was necessary, as in all cases, to have a bout agreement.  This was discussed between them on the 19th January, 1993.  Collins wanted one or two changes and specified that he required legal advice.  Barry Hearn was about to leave for South Africa and left the agreement with Stephen Dawson of Matchroom Boxing to arrange to have Collins sign it.  He returned from South Africa on the 14th February and the agreement had not yet been signed.  At this stage there was pressure to sign in order to satisfy Sky's scheduling.  Doubts were beginning to enter into Hearn's mind as to whether Collins was really going to fight this fight at all.  He arranged to have the agreement faxed to Stephen Collins in Las Vegas where he was training and the signed version was faxed back by Collins.  
	Collins had gone to Las Vegas because he needed to see Tony Quinn.  All arrangements for Collins' Las Vegas trip were left to his staff, namely Stephen Dawson and John Wischussen.  The agreement between them meant that if Collins beat Eubank at Millstreet Barry Hearn would be his manager for another year.  Collins did beat Eubank at Millstreet.  Barry Hearn had thought that Eubank had the slight edge and would probably win.  He knew, however, from Collins' behaviour at Millstreet immediately after the fight that things were not right between them and that there would be trouble.  After the fight Collins said to him:

	"Don't talk to me of less than a million, Barry - but if you are going to get a cut out of it you are going to need more than a million."  

	The atmosphere between them was not the same as it had been when Collins had beaten Pyatt.  He did not have a party with Collins after the fight but went home with his wife. 
	Prior to the fight he had asked Collins' permission to lead Chris Eubank out to the ring and explained that it would not be possible for him to lead Collins as well due to time constraints.  Collins had no problem with this and was quite happy to have Barney Eastwood lead him out instead.  Collins was quite focused.  All the detailed arrangements in Millstreet were made through Stephen Dawson and john Wishcussen.  
	After the fight Stephen Collins became arrogant.  He was revelling as champion and insisted that the press would follow him to his dressing room.
	Barry Hearn was still Collins' manager, however, and they discussed alternatives some time later.  Neither of them was interested in a low purse bout.  The obvious option was a rematch with Eubank.  Barry Hearn's job was to maximise his fighter's earnings.  He was also hoping to salvage their relationship.  Various financial options were discussed including a suggestion from Barry Hearn that Collins would himself promote the fight.  Collins, however, was not interested in taking any risks.  He wanted a guarantee.  Barry Hearn waived his options under their existing agreement and made an offer of £825,000 net which was the equivalent of the ultimate purse offer bid offer of £1.2 million.  Barry Hearn knew that Collins was talking to other promoters at this stage.  Collins did not come back to him in relation to that offer but he did fax to him his solicitor's letter to Frank Warren's solicitors in relation to a proposed promotion by Warren of four fights for Collins.  
	Barry Hearn was still Collins' manager and whilst he was extremely disappointed and shattered at Collins' attitude after Millstreet he had to give him the best advice he could and told him that if he had any doubt about the value of any offer he should allow the bout to go to a purse bid. Barry Hearn had not received any complaints about his management.  He made several efforts to contact Collins over the period following the 18th March, 1995 but without success.  
	On the 29th May in New York he attended the purse bid ceremony for the Collins/Eubank re-match.  This was ultimately won by Frank Warren's representative at a bid of £1.2 million.  In cross-examination Barry Hearn accepted that he made highly critical comments about sports network (Frank Warren's company) and Frank Warren at the purse bid ceremony.  He did not think that he spent as long as half an hour criticising them or reflecting on the integrity of Mr. Warren and his company and said that it would have been futile to suggest that they should not be permitted to bid because he could not stop that happening.  He may have done his best to criticise them for effectively taking away one of his fighters while he was under contract.
	The letter from Stephen Collins dated the 6th June, 1995 (received on the 9th) came as a complete shock to him.  There had been no prior complaints from Collins.  Frank Warren had won the purse offer and had agreed a four fight package.  He wrote refusing to accept the termination of the agreement and regarded himself as Stephen Collins' manager until he finally accepted the situation in mid-September when he gave the contractual thirty days notice of termination expiring on the 14th October, 1995.  That is the day when he ceased to be Stephen Collins' manager.  The Chris Eubank rematch took place on the 9th September, 1995 in Cork at a purse of £1.2 million.  
	Barry Hearn estimated that Matchroom Boxing would have spent some £200,000 (a guesstimate) on Stephen Collins up to that point.  Pay day for a promoter and a manager comes if and when the fighter makes good and honours his commitments.  
	Under cross-examination he accepted that after the purse bid ceremony in New York he approached Mr. Roberts of Matchroom Boxing and asked him to send his fee of 25% direct to him.  He did not expect Mr. Roberts would comply.   He accepted he did not have a right to receive this money direct.  He accepted that he might well invoice for his management services through the company.  He accepted that one of the principal obligations of a manager was to negotiate the best possible terms from the promoter for the fighter.  In the case where his fighter knew that he was also the promoter (as did Collins in the case of the Eubank and Pyatt matches) all he could do was to do a fair deal which he did.
	Stephen Collins' complaints in relation to Millstreet did not stand up in light of the result.  He never received any complaints in relation to Collins' treatment in Las Vegas.  He stood to gain, in fact, by Stephen Collins' win over Chris Eubank because he had a contract with both parties and now Stephen Collins was on the brink of lucrative earnings.  Whilst he was very disappointed for Chris Eubank he was pleased for Stephen Collins and this did not prevent him from doing his job as manager for Collins.  He maintained that the fight at Millstreet was the same bout as was agreed for Belfast where Collins would replace Ray Close but accepted that legal correspondence between the lawyers for B Sky B and himself indicated that Sky's lawyers had formally rejected Collins as replacement and renegotiated the Collins/Eubank bout for Millstreet. Barry Hearn insisted, however, that Collins was accepted promptly by Sky's head of sport Vic Wakling, who was delighted to have Stephen Collins as he was a very credible opponent for Chris Eubank and this fight was accepted as part of the "Eubank World Tour" series of eight bouts the subject of the agreement with Sky.  The lawyers, however, availed of the opportunity to renegotiate the contract in relation to Millstreet.  The card may have been rejected:  Stephen Collins was never rejected by Sky.  
	In relation to the Valcarcel correspondence Barry Hearn said that this correspondence was written by him as Chris Eubank's manager.  Its objective was to keep Eubank busy.  It did not affect Stephen Collins nor could it ever have done.  It was a tactical correspondence.  Collins' position as champion was protected by the WBO rules which entitled him to a period of up to one hundred and eighty days before he could be stripped of his title in the event of failing to defend it once he had sent in a medical certificate (as he had done) indicating that he was unfit for a specified bout.  All Barry Hearn was seeking to do in this correspondence was to set up an interim fight for Christ Eubank who was pressing him very strongly for such a fight in the event that the rematch scheduled for the 27th July was going to be delayed.  At the time of the correspondence Barry Hearn was not aware of when Frank Warren was proposing to hold the rematch.  There was no possibility  that Collins' title would be stripped and there was no possibility that the Collins' share of the purse to which he would be entitled could be reduced from 75% to 50% as contended for by him in the correspondence.  In the end this tactical correspondence was successful:  it achieved an interim match for Eubank:  Collins got his rematch at the agreed purse, Warren got his fee and nobody lost.
	Barry Hearn flatly denied that he approached and attempted to influence 
Ron Lipton, the referee of the Millstreet fight, on either of the two occasions given in evidence by Ron Lipton.  He did, indeed, at the Rules Committee deliver his standard address imploring the referee to give "cut men" an opportunity to deal with any cuts rather than stop a fight prematurely because of cuts because he viewed this as unsatisfactory.  He did not approach Ron Lipton at all as alleged attempting to influence him against Stephen Collins.  It would have

been impossible for him to approach Ron Lipton on his way to the ring for the fight because of crowds of people and the limited time available.  He rejected this allegation in the strongest terms.

FREDDY KING
	Mr. King gave evidence that he was an ex-professional boxer, a trainer, a qualified "cut man" (that is a specialist in dealing with boxers' cuts at the ringside) and his success as a trainer was due to his understanding of, and empathy with boxers.  He trained Chris Eubank for years and had a long association with Mr. Hearn.  He was a shareholder in Matchroom Boxing but became independent of Barry Hearn in September 1995.  He was a full time trainer since May 1991 and has trained a number of world champions including Herbie Hyde, Chris Eubank, Stephen Collins and Paul Jones.  He met Stephen Collins in January of 1993 and spoke directly to him to the effect that Collins would have to do what he told him.  He was disillusioned at the time.  He was a strong fighter and a very good trainer.  He was able to help Collins with some technical matters and improve in particular his knock out punch.  He also trained Herbie Hyde who was with Matchroom and at that time he was an ex-trainer of Chris Eubank.  this was to Stephen Collins' advantage at the Millstreet bout.  He was very fond of Stephen Collins and did not like giving evidence against him. 
	His practice was to make contact with the maintenance men who are running any particular bout on the ground and did so at Millstreet.  There was an issue as to whether towels, buckets, ice and water was in Stephen Collins' room.  He did check this on the night of the Millstreet bout and these items were there.  He carried them around with him.  It was a great win for Stephen Collins who had beaten "the unbeatable".  Very few thought that Stephen Collins would win but Freddy King said he thought he would.
	Stephen Collins was close to Tony Quinn at Millstreet and he did not like this:  he became distant after the fight.  He waited a long time with his wife that evening but did not attend the party.  He waited with his wife until late at night and in the early hours went and said good-night to Stephen Collins before going to bed.  Stephen Collins was cool.  His relationship with Stephen Collins was like a father to a son.  He had taken a very active part in Stephen Collins' training, choosing fights, opponents and sparring partners.  Stephen Collins wanted the fight with Chris Eubank.  He did need more time to prepare for it because he was not 100% ready and he had persuaded Barry Hearn to delay the fight from February in Belfast to March in Millstreet although this annoyed Barry Hearn.  
	Before that fight Stephen Collins had wanted to go to the United States.  He should have stayed training with Freddy King who was to a degree upset that he did not do this.  Freddy King was with Herbie Hyde at the time who was training in England in preparation for a bout in the States.  Stephen Collins did not complain about the arrangements or conditions in the States and accepted it when Freddy King phoned him to tell him there would be a three or four day delay because training was not going well with Herbie Hyde.  Stephen Collins was content about this.  When he went out to Las Vegas  he was training both Herbie Hyde and Stephen Collins.  It was a shattering routine.  He treated them equally.  He did not prefer Hyde to Collins. He did not know why Stephen Collins returned home before Herbie Hyde's fight.  
	Freddy King was a bit upset by the fact that he had to use a special telephone code in order to make contact with Stephen Collins in Millstreet before the fight with Eubank.  Freddy King checked his dressing room on the evening of the fight at 6.00 p.m. and there were towels, a couple of buckets of ice and water.  He put them there himself; he always carried these things personally.  He again checked at 6.30 p.m. and Steve Collins arrived at 7.00 p.m. with his entourage which included Tony Quinn.  He was quite happy to be led out to the ring by Barney Eastwood.   Stephen Collins made no complaints to him.
	After the fight he found Stephen Collins very stand-offish and strange.  It was his, Freddy King's, wedding anniversary and he stayed around with his wife but did not go to any party.  Immediately after the fight Tony Quinn took over Stephen Collins' dressing room and was very close to him speaking to him all the time.  Freddy King felt a bit put out by this.  He stayed up with his wife until about 2.30 a.m.  He was very hurt at Stephen Collins' attitude.  Together they had beaten the unbeatable.  In the early hours he met Stephen Collins and said "Son, I am going to bed" and Collins said "O.K.".  He was completely baffled.  He could not express himself because he did not want to spoil the evening for Stephen Collins.  He was frustrated and hurt at Collins' attitude.  
 	Later he telephoned and got Collins' answering machine.  Collins did not return his calls and Freddy King was upset because Collins was leaving and doing a deal with somebody else without ever giving any explanation.  On occasion in the past in the pub while training he used to say that Freddy King was the best trainer he ever had.  Yet he never said "thank you" or expressed gratitude to Freddy King in any way after the 18th March, 1995.
	In cross-examination he would not agree that there was a conflict where the same individual was manager and promoter or even if the same individual managed both fighters in the same bout.  It was a question of the fighter accepting the deal if he wanted it.  He was aware in general of the Sky deal.  He would not accept that Herbie Hyde was more important to him than Stephen Collins.  He insisted that he arranged training for Collins in Las Vegas with Top Rank and arranged sparring partners.  
	He got no complaints from Stephen Collins except only one:  Collins complained that his picture was not on the wall with other great boxers in Barry Hearn's study.  He did not see that he should have gone to Las Vegas with Stephen Collins - he was not a baby minder.  Training winds down as one comes closer to the date of the bout.  In relation to the party after Millstreet he was not told where it was and he felt very neglected.  Stephen Collins may have telephoned him after that fight but it was only to get sparring partners:  it was not Stephen Collins talking to him as a friend.  

STEPHEN DAWSON 
	Stephen Dawson was in charge of the accounts and other management matters with Matchroom Boxing.  In relation to the bout agreement for the Millstreet fight he went through this with Stephen Collins on February 9th 1995.  Collins took it away with him.  Collins understood that the management agreement was incorporated in the schedule to the bout agreement.  There was pressure to sign the bout agreement due to the Sky scheduling.  He faxed a copy of the agreement to Stephen Collins' solicitor Mr. Delahunt on the 
15th February, 1995.  He asked Mr. Delahunt whether Clause 4 of the Schedule should be in the agreement.  Mr. Delahunt confirmed that it was all right to have it there.  In cross-examination he accepted that Mr. Delahunt may not have been aware explicitly of the management agreement:  he, Mr. Dawson, assumed that he had been given a copy of it by Stephen Collins.
	Mr. Delahunt did not raise the point that the Belfast bout had not taken place and that this was a different agreement; he did not raise any point in relation to Barry Hearn not being a party as distinct from the company.  He did not complain in relation to the treatment of Stephen Collins by Barry Hearn.  
	In relation to the estimate of expenditure by Matchroom Boxing on 
Stephen Collins these related to living accommodation, gym expenses, trainer expenses and other overheads all paid by Matchroom Boxing over a twenty-seven month period.  He produced documentation in support of these estimates.  He confirmed that the company had made a loss on the Hong Kong venture.

JOHN WISCHUSSEN
	This witness was in charge of co-ordinating travelling arrangements and other arrangements on behalf of Matchroom Boxing.  He had regular contact with Stephen Collins during his time with Matchroom and there were never any difficulties or complaints.  He was in charge of making the arrangements for Stephen Collins in relation to Boston and Millstreet.  Collins had asked him to book a flight to Las Vegas.  He got the impression Stephen Collins wanted to be away from it all and suggested that journalists' pressure on Collins following an allegedly racist remark by Collins referring to Chris Eubank at a press conference in Jurys Hotel was part of this pressure.  In relation to Las Vegas he confirmed that he arranged for Collins to travel earlier than the rest of the Matchroom group and that he had booked and paid for a room in the hotel in Las Vegas.  In relation to the Millstreet venue he confirmed that Matchroom Boxing had booked Collins into the Great Southern Hotel.  He had booked him a suite where he assumed his wife would stay also.  Barry Hearn was booked into a separate hotel and Chris Eubank into a further hotel again.  
	He attempted to contact Stephen Collins while at Millstreet but was unable to do so.  He managed to get through to his wife but was not able to contact Collins directly.  She did not make any complaint.  He had not been given the name of Collette Millea (an assistant to Tony Quinn) as a contact person.  He found it very difficult to make arrangements for Stephen Collins due to this lack of contact. 
	He was at Millstreet himself.  There were no complaints made on behalf of Collins.  He could not agree that there were  no ice buckets, towels or water in Collins' dressing room.  In cross-examination, however, he accepted that it was possible that Freddy King carried these around himself and it was possible that a bucket was not in Stephen Collins' dressing room.  He had been in all the dressing rooms between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. and checked  each of them.  
	A point had been made that Chris Eubank usually travels first class:  John Wischussen pointed out that this was largely paid for by Eubank himself.  He felt that Stephen Collins' request to upgrade his ticket to Las Vegas from economy to first class was reasonable and it had been done.  He produced a hotel bill to show that Collins had been pre-booked in the hotel in Las Vegas.  He understood that the training and management of Collins' fights had been sorted out and he produced an invoice for a car for Stephen Collins from Cork Airport to Millstreet.  The situation in Stephen Collins' dressing room after the Millstreet fight was chaotic.  

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENDANT
RON LIPTON
INTRODUCTION
	I would make one or two introductory remarks to set the evidence of this witness in context.  He was brought over on behalf of  Stephen Collins to make a very serious allegation against Barry Hearn.  He was the referee of the Millstreet bout and he had given advance instructions to Counsel for Stephen Collins that Barry Hearn had approached him on his way to the ring on the night of the fight and said "Watch out for Collins he is a dirty fighter.  Watch his use of the head".  Subsequently it emerged that the allegation was that Barry Hearn had approached Ron Lipton on two occasions, the first being on his, Mr. Lipton's, way to the mock weigh-in on the night before the bout and the second on the night of the fight on his way to the ring to check the ring before the fight proper.  He says that he had given this information on the telephone to Stephen Collins in April 1995 a short time after the Millstreet bout.  He says that he merged the two instances into one on that occasion whereas Stephen Collins says that it was then that he told him about the two approaches.  Both confirmed that it was only on the occasion of this telephone call between Ron Lipton and Stephen Collins in April 1995 that Ron Lipton became aware that Barry Hearn was actually the manager of Stephen Collins as well as the manager of Chris Eubank and promoter of the bout.   These approaches are referred to hereafter as the "nobbling" approaches.
	Between April 1995 and the commencement of the trial Stephen Collins lost contact with Ron Lipton.  Mr. Lipton gave his evidence on day fifteen of the hearing and by agreement between the parties was interposed during the evidence of Stephen Collins.

THE EVIDENCE 
	Mr. Lipton's evidence can be summarised as follows:
	He was the referee for the Millstreet bout on the 18th March, 1995.  He had been a professional boxer and a policeman for twenty years with the New York Police Department from which he retired ten years ago on medical grounds.  Since then he has been a referee and has kept up-to-date, particularly with medical issues and he produced a number of certificates to show this.  He knew Barry Hearn and Matchroom Boxing especially since refereeing the Loughran-Duran bout in Belfast in January 1994.  Before the Millstreet bout, Barry Hearn had suggested that he would referee another fight instead of Millstreet but did not suggest that he was unfit to referee the Millstreet bout.  
	The World Boxing Organisation wanted him to be the referee for this bout and appointed him.  He denied that they were reluctant in doing this.  There were no complaints following the Loughran-Duran fight in Belfast. Towards the end of that fight Barry Hearn had yelled at him to stop the fight.  At that stage there were only forty-five seconds of the twelfth round left.  The doctor came to the ring but had not told him to stop the fight.  The doctor advised him to stop the fight but left it to him whether it could be carried on.  He had not overruled the doctor in that fight. 
	He arrived in Millstreet some days before the bout and had dinner in the hotel with the officials and Barry Hearn who was a gracious host.  Before the fight he approached 
Mr. Montano who was the official from the WBO and made complaints in relation to a particular matter.  Subsequently he said that he told Mr. Montano about the entirety of his complaint which included an alleged attempt to threaten him (which I ruled inadmissible);   damage to his property and disturbance in his hotel bedroom and the "nobbling" approaches of Barry Hearn to him.  Later again he specified that he had not told Mr. Montano of the "nobbling" approaches.  
	He said that he was not aware at the time that Barry Hearn was Stephen Collins' manager.  He said that Barry Hearn approached him on his way to the ring for the ceremonial weigh-in on the night before the bout.  The ceremonial weigh-in was necessary because a huge crowd turned up, measured in thousands, who could not be accommodated at the actual weigh-in and it was agreed to have a ceremonial weigh-in in the ring itself.  In relation to this approach by Barry Hearn he said:-

	"He was next to me, put his arm around me, pulled me into him and said 'Tomorrow night, make sure you watch Collins' use of the head.  He is a dirty fighter.  Watch his tatics.  He is a real pro with the head.' 
	and I said to him 'I have seen him fight before, Barry.  He seems like a clean fighter to me'  
	He said ' Just make sure you watch his head' 
	and I said ' I will watch both fighters' 
	and I told him I was still very upset at what had happened me in the hotel." 

	He then referred to a second 'nobbling' attempt by Barry Hearn on the occasion when he went to the ring on the Saturday night to check the ring before the actual bout itself.  In relation to this he said:-

	"I will have to define on my way to the ring, in actuality, yes, on my way to the ring, but it was not immediately prior to the fighters entering the ring, it was when I went to the ring to check the ring.  I had judged the fight, there was some preliminaries."  (This is a reference to his being a judge at a preliminary cruiser-weight contest).  

	Then he went on:-

	"It was a brief conversation repeating what he had said the night before 
	'Keep an eye on Collins.  Watch his head, watch the fouls by him.  He is a real pro.  He knows how to get away with that kind of stuff.' 
	and I told him  'O.K. I will.  I will watch both fighters.  You do not have to have any concern.  I know what I am doing and let it go at that.'
	He said 'O.K., O.K., O.K...'"

	Since Millstreet he has refereed a number of title bouts.  There have been no complaints from the WBO about Millstreet.  He wrote to both fighters and to Barry Hearn after the fight.  These were very friendly letters.  There was a complaint to the WBO on the part of Chris Eubank.  
	At the Rules Committee meeting prior to the Millstreet bout he did not recall Barry Hearn's speech in relation to cuts.  At that meeting there was great controversy because Chris Eubank said he would not fight and the fight was off.  Later in cross-examination he described that meeting as chaotic.  
	In a telephone call in April after the fight Stephen Collins rang in relation to rumblings concerning improprieties. He confirmed these to Stephen Collins and told him of the approach by Barry Hearn.  He was not aware until this telephone call that Barry Hearn was Stephen Collins' manager.  He did not give Collins the exact words but told him what he had said.  In cross-examination he said that he did not tell Collins on the telephone in April 1995 of the two approaches but ran them together.  He did tell Mr. Montano of both incidents.  It was not a normal rules committee meeting and he could not recall anyone representing Stephen Collins at it.  
	When he came into the meeting there was chaos.  There was no normalcy and no Rules Committee meeting because there was no fight.  There was no kind of meeting for anyone to be in charge of.  He mentioned his complaint in its entirety to Mr. Montano.  He waited for Mr. Montano to arrive as an independent official.  He would have been shocked if he knew that Barry Hearn was Stephen Collins' manager.  He did hear rumblings after the fight and a complaint from Mr. Hearn.  The WBO had been under negative criticism, especially as  Wiesel Fernandez of the WBO had appointed himself to be referee.  This should not have happened.  
	In relation to the Duran fight he said he had a clock in his head and the incident with the doctor occurred in the twelfth round when there were forty five seconds left.  He heard someone prompting him to give a TKO (technical knock out).  When the doctor came up he was prompted by Barry Hearn and this caused him to weigh up the doctor's motives.  The cut did not get worse in those forty five seconds.  Later he said that if he called the doctor it would have been out of concern for the fighter.  He said that he did not overrule the doctor.  He asked his advice but the doctor had left the decision to him.  He would only accept that he called the doctor if a video showed him making a T gesture to show that time should stop (the video was later shown and did indicate this gesture).  He accepted that there were six criminal charges outstanding against him in the State of New York, that he was out on bail in relation to these charges but his bail permitted him to travel to Ireland.  These charges arose out of substantial self-defence, not violence arising out of the same incident.  He lived in a rough neighbourhood.  
	Later he accepted that he did not tell Mr. Montano of the two "nobbling" approaches but only his other complaints.  He did not tell Mr. Mel Crystal about these approaches.  After the event he wrote to Barry Hearn in the friendliest of terms.  He had become aware of complaints relating to missing items from his hotel bedroom in Millstreet and asked Stephen Collins on the telephone to check into these complaints for him.  Later he accepted that the video of the Duran fight showed that the doctor incident occurred thirty eight seconds into the round:  not when the round had only forty five seconds left.  He said that he did not report the "nobbling" approaches to Mr. Montano.  Since then he had not been appointed referee by the WBO and he thought that this was some kind of punishment.  He denied that he was giving evidence as a revenge or out of a sense of grievance against Barry Hearn.  

STEPHEN COLLINS' EVIDENCE 
	He is married with three children.  He comes from a very sporting family.  He started his post-school life with a job in Guinness.  He had his first boxing match at the age of eight and was an amateur for fifteen years.  He married in July 1985 and made his professional debut in 1986.  He went to live in Boston where he worked and trained with the Petronelli Brothers.  He came to Ireland in 1990 and was managed by Barney Eastwood.  At the end of 1992 he had lost two verdicts, he thought unfairly, and he was looking for a new manager who would give a lift to his career.  He tried several and then went to Barry Hearn.  He thought Barry Hearn was the right man for him because of his influence with television and because he managed a stable of boxers which would assist in his promotion.  Also he wanted to train with Freddy King who worked for Barry Hearn because he liked the style of boxers trained by him.  He met Barry Hearn in January 1993 and was promised a title fight within six to twelve months.  He would not agree he was worthless or broken at this stage.  He was still a highly ranked fighter.  
	He trained hard at Barry Hearn's camp at Romford, Essex and was prepared to put up with the primitive conditions for the sake of his career.  His family were living in Dublin and he visited them at weekends.  He had a number of fights all of which were competitive.  He beat Johnny Melfah in Cardiff on the 6th February, 1993; Ian Strudwick in London in early March; Gerry Botes on the 29th June, 1993 and Wayne Elliott on the 30th November, 1993 in Cardiff.  This was a "Junior" World title fight known as the Penta Continental Middleweight title.  He beat Johnny Melfah on the 22nd January, 1994 in Belfast for a low purse.  He got short notice for this fight and was asked to do it by Freddy King for Barry Hearn as a favour.  He had too much to lose and did not want this fight but was pressurised into it for a low purse.  On the 9th February, 1994 he beat Paul Wesley.  He would not agree that Mr. Wesley was a journey man or a loser as described by Barry Hearn.  He was a tough and dangerous adversary. 
	He became the mandatory challenger of Chris Pyatt who was the WBO World Middleweight Champion.  Pyatt had been managed by Barry Hearn but in February of 1994 he left Barry Hearn and following this Barry Hearn said to him "I'll no longer protect Chris Pyatt from you any more" and also "The little so and so:  that fight is going to happen now" . Prior to the Pyatt challenge he signed the contract of the 9th May, 1994.  He had legal advice about this agreement and fully accepted that contract which ran for a year.  He fought Pyatt on the 11th May, 1994 in Sheffield and knocked him out in the fifth round.  Barry Hearn was delighted because it brought the title back into his control.  Pyatt had gone over to Frank Warren and Barry Hearn had scored over Frank Warren.  Stephen Collins was delighted.  It was his life's ambition achieved.  His family were very happy and they had a party in Sheffield and he drove by limousine provided by Matchroom Boxing to Romford where there was another party.  
	Now he was a champion and he was hungry for fights.  Barry Hearn promised him that he would have headline fights in Ireland.  He went into Barry Hearn's office often seeking fights.  He was often met with talk from Barry Hearn explaining why he could not have a fight.  Sometimes he was flattered by Hearn saying that "Nigel Benn won't fight you."  When he would come out of the office he would realise that he had not got a promise of a fight.  In September 1994 an offer with a £100,000 purse came from Barney Eastwood.  Barry Hearn's initial reaction was that it seemed good and was worth investigating.  On investigation it emerged that Frank Warren was behind the offer and immediately Barry Hearn's attitude changed.  There was some change in the original offer indicating a purse of £80,000 and £20,000 worth of tickets.  He was advised by Barry Hearn and Freddy King not to accept the deal because the offer was not trustworthy.  He accepted this advice at the time.  During this time the energy in Matchroom Boxing was centred on the Chris Eubank World Series.  
	He got an opportunity to fight Lonnie Beasley in Hong Kong on the 
23rd October, 1994 because his original opponent (Zack Pedilla) had pulled out.  Despite being requested to do so Barry Hearn would not re-negotiate the purse for him which stood at £100,000.  He went to Norwich to Herbie Hyde's training camp where Freddy King was training Hyde.  He went there because he needed Freddy King to train him as well.  He travelled with the Matchroom Group first class to Hong Kong and everything was done correctly.  A problem arose at the weigh-in and the fight was cancelled because the promoters, a U.S. company called Top Rank, had not guaranteed the purse.  Other managers insisted that their fighters would get on the scales because that gave them leverage with the promoters for compensation if there was not a rematch.  Barry Hearn advised him not to weigh in and this was bad advice.  He had gone to enormous efforts to make the weight by not drinking liquids and sweating in the Hong Kong heat.
	His bout was rearranged for Boston in December against Lonnie Beasley for £100,000.  Freddy King did not travel to Boston with him as he should have done.  He needed Freddy King.  He had to arrange training from his old manager, Petronelli.  Freddy King arrived on the day before the weigh-in.  His sparring against Paul (Silky) Jones had not gone very well.  He got a virus and on medical grounds he had to pull out of the bout.  No arrangements had been made by Matchroom Boxing for sparring, or for a gym or training as there should have been.  He accepted that in entering into the management agreement (9th May, 1994), the manuscript agreement (15th January, 1995) and the bout agreement (17th February, 1995) he knew that Barry Hearn managed Chris Eubank, Herbie Hyde, Eamon Loughran and Chris Pyatt.  This was not a difficulty for him:  he just expected fair play from Barry Hearn.  He complained that in January 1994 he got one day's short notice of a fight for a low fee when there was too much risk.
	After he came back from Boston his morale was low.  He called Frank Warren and discussed making a deal with him.  He was told that the Sean Cummins' offer (which had originally been made in September of that year (1994)) was still open.  He suggested that Frank Warren might be interested in buying out his management agreement with Barry Hearn.  He did not inform Barry Hearn of these approaches.  He arranged to have a meeting with Frank Warren after Christmas.  In January 1995 he got work as a commentator on TV.  
	On the 13th January Ray Close pulled out of a proposed bout with Chris Eubank on medical grounds.  Barry Hearn suggested to him that he could be a substitute.  He was immediately suspicious but at the same time it was a wonderful opportunity which he was very anxious to take.  He felt in a strong bargaining position and asked Barry Hearn for £200,000 for the bout.  Barry Hearn said that it would be less 25% with an amount of £150,000 for Stephen Collins.  He also said that Stephen Collins should pay the trainer.  Collins said that he would have to have £150,000, no more no less.   Barry Hearn said he would ring him the next day to confirm and he did this and said that the fight was on.  
	This was at the time that he had a pre-arranged meeting with Frank Warren.  Stephen Collins was happy with the deal but Warren warned him to be very careful because he would have to fight the whole Matchroom organisation.  
	He really wanted the fight with Chris Eubank.  He signed the manuscript agreement on the 15th January for this reason.  At the time of signing Barry Hearn did not tell him that the B Sky B lawyers had cancelled the agreement for February.  He wanted his solicitor to have a look at the manuscript agreement but was told he had to sign because of the time pressure from Sky television.  He felt he was forced to sign because he wanted that fight.  It was his first big pay day. 
	He signed the bout agreement but added a paragraph specifying that he did so without legal advice.  He then went to Las Vegas to train.  The atmosphere at Matchroom Boxing was a-buzz because the Eubank World Tour was on again.  He felt he was a small cog in the overall machine and was not expected to win.  He felt that he needed help, that he was on his own and he needed a sports psychologist.  The fight was not delayed because of his illness.  He was ready for it and had a doctor's certificate which was available in Romford to prove it.  He was told that the fight was postponed to the 18th March and he suggested Millstreet as a venue and it was taken up by Barry Hearn  and became the venue.
	He went to Las Vegas because Herbie Hyde had a fight out there and Freddy King would be travelling with Herbie Hyde.  He needed to go because he needed to train with Freddy King.  He made arrangements to see Tony Quinn in Las Vegas and when he was told that there was a delay to facilitate Herbie Hyde, he needed to go out earlier than the rest of the group.  Stephen Dawson did show him the bout agreement before he went to Las Vegas but went over it too quickly and he took away a copy. 
	When he arrived in Las Vegas he found that no one had informed his substitute trainer, Bozza Edwards.  There was no one to look after him.  He was not booked into the hotel, arrangements were not made to collect him at the airport and he had to fend largely for himself and pay for many of his expenses.  His training went well under all the circumstances and when Freddy King did come out with Herbie Hyde he shared him as trainer in the same gym.  He left before Herbie Hyde's bout and flew back to London where there was nobody to meet him.  He finally got a ride back to Romford where he was put up on a Saturday night one week before his Millstreet bout in the training camp beside the offices where it was very noisy into the small hours.  He did not sleep well.  He had been suffering from jet lag, had been delayed at the airport so he moved to a B&B until he left for Cork.  
	When he arrived at Cork there was no one to meet him and he had to take a lift for the two to three hour drive to Millstreet with one of the judges.  He was booked into a suite in the Great Southern Hotel in Killarney but there was noise outside his window that night and he left and went to a house which had been taken by Tony Quinn where he stayed until the Millstreet bout.  He left word with Tony Quinn's assistant, Collette Millea, as a contact person with Matchroom.  He did not arrange to be uncontactable.  
	On his first attempt he did not make the weight for the Millstreet bout:  he had only meat scales available to him and he had to skip in order to lose weight.  This provided a morale boost for Chris Eubank.  When he got to the venue on the night of the fight there was bedlam.  He was not provided with an escort.  His room was locked.  It was not kitted out.  Freddy King, his trainer, should have been there.  
	He won the fight that night and he felt that he beat all those who were working against him.  Barry Hearn was as sick as a parrot.  After the fight he was light-headed and passed out on the floor of his room.  He was covered in a silver foil blanket and he stayed there for approximately an hour.  Later he saw Freddy King's wife who hugged him and Freddy King at the party.  He was celebrating with Freddy King.  Late in the night Freddy King told him that he was tired and wanted to go to bed but before doing so he cleared up his eye.  Barry Hearn was not happy that night.  
	He was given two civic receptions in Dublin and Cork and invited Freddy King and Barry Hearn to both of them but neither turned up.
	Following the fight he was aware of rumours that Barry Hearn was attempting to have him stripped of his title.  He contacted Ron Lipton by telephone in April who was not aware that Barry Hearn was his manager until that telephone call.  Ron Lipton told him of the "nobbling" approaches both before the match and on the night of the fight.  He also told him about damage to his property in his hotel room.  He did not train or return to Matchroom after the Millstreet fight.  
	It cost him money to leave Barry Hearn because he had to pay Tony Quinn £360,000 but it was worth it to get away from Barry Hearn.  At the purse ceremony in New York on the 29th May, 1995 Barry Hearn tried to prevent Frank Warren's company from bidding.  If Barry Hearn had succeeded in doing this it would have ruined everything for him.  He did not regard himself as bound by the bout agreement and wrote the letter of the 6th June, 1995 confirming that situation.  
	In cross-examination he said that some boxers were slaves to their managers and he would describe Barry Hearn as a user.  He signed the manuscript agreement of the 
15th January, 1995 because he wanted the bout with Chris Eubank.  He agreed that he signed three agreements with Barry Hearn in May 1994 and January and February of 1995 .  In January 1995 he felt that he was in a strong bargaining position as champion and did actually bargain.  He thought that this agreement was over when Sky cancelled the Belfast bout.  There was a new deal with a new venue in different circumstances. 
	He had an increasing sense that he wanted to get away from Barry Hearn arising out of a lot of little things.  These included that he had to go to Las Vegas when he did not want to, there was no booking for him there, there was no one to collect him at the airport, there was no sparring partner there, there were no proper arrangements for a gym, Bozza Edwards was not notified to be his temporary trainer, there was no one to collect him on his return at Heathrow, there was no proper accommodation at Romford, the arrangement at the Great Southern Hotel in Millstreet was unsatisfactory, there was no one to meet him at the stadium on the night of his fight, there was no one to point out his dressing room and the arrangements in the dressing room were inadequate.  A combination of these show that Barry Hearn was not acting in his interests and at the end of the fight at Millstreet he concluded that Barry Hearn was biased. 
	The other witnesses on behalf of Barry Hearn were coached.  Freddy King was a loyal friend of Barry Hearn and regrettably gave false evidence.  He never went back to Matchroom after Millstreet.  Barry Hearn failed in his job as manager to get him the most beneficial deal by attempting to "nobble" the referee and by the many things referred to which all added up.  At the time, after Millstreet, he was not yet ready to stand up to Barry Hearn who was very powerful in boxing circles.  He insisted that he never actually calculated how much he was being sued for in these proceedings.  
	In relation to many extracts put to him in cross-examination from the book "Celtic Warrior" by Steve Collins with Paul Howard he accepted that many of these extracts were not true but he permitted them to be published at the time as being a better story.  He hoped that the story would attract a hollywood producer.  It was beneficial at the time for him to promote the book:  he accepted that he made some changes in the draft manuscript and that these conflicted with his evidence in the case.
	He accepted that he co-operated with the production of the book the Celtic Warrior but he had a dispute with Brandon Book Publishers because they had assured him that they had legal advice protecting him from any responsibility in relation to the contents of that book.  He subsequently became aware that the legal advice came from a person who was not legally qualified and this was the reason he had a quarrel with Brandon Books.  He accepted that his income increased significantly between January 1993 and March 1995.
	He insisted that the amount of the purse for Millstreet was agreed at £200,000 with Barry Hearn to get his 25% management fee. 
	The "nobbling" of the ref operated in his mind when he sent his letter of the 
6th June, 1995 as did the rumours that Barry Hearn was making efforts to strip him of his title.  This was a very serious breach and one of many breaches that added up.  Another very serious breach was for Barry Hearn to go to the purse bid ceremony supposedly as a Matchroom representative to bid for the fight and to try to prevent the top bidder which was Frank Warren's Sports Network from bidding for that fight so that he would not have a good pay day.  This was a very serious breach and to him was probably the final thing that Barry Hearn had done to him. 

	"When that happened, I said that's it, It's over as far as I am concerned.  I do not want any part of this man or his organisation and I am going to have to make it be known to him that I do not want him."

	He was aware that Barry Hearn managed Chris Pyatt, Chris Eubank and others and all he wanted was fair play.  He did not train with Matchroom after the 18th March.  He had a new trainer, Freddy Roche, who organised sparring partners.  From the 18th March he did not want Barry Hearn to be his manager.  He did not want him to be manger in April or in May or in June.  He did want Freddy King to train him but that did not happen.  In relation to the proceedings in the United Kingdom his solicitor gave different grounds for his break with Barry Hearn.  In relation to the U.K. proceedings he had been advised that Barry Hearn was powerful and not to give all the reasons for terminating his agreement with him, that he had enough evidence in what he said to win that case and he accepted this advice.
	He contacted Ron Lipton after the present case started.  He accepted that he  signed the manuscript agreement (15th January, 1995) notwithstanding a number of complaints which he was now relying on.  A week later that contract was finished because B Sky B cancelled the bout in Belfast.  It was not postponed because he was ill.  He had told Barry Hearn that he was "ready to rumble". 
	In relation to the Valcarcel correspondence he did have a problem with his knuckle which he subsequently avoided by having water-filled punchbags.  In relation to the letter of the 6th June, 1995 he requested his solicitor to inform Barry Hearn that he wanted to regularise the whole situation and tell him officially in case there was any doubt, that he was no longer requesting him to be engaged with him in any way at all because he had breached their previous agreement of contract.  Nobbling the referee had been a breach of contract, attempting to deprive him of the purse at the purse bid ceremony had been a very serious breach as had his request for direct payment of 25% of the money from Chris Roberts once Sports Network had been accepted as promoter.  

MEL CRYSTLE
	He is the President of the Boxing Union of Ireland (hereinafter "the B.U.I").  He gave evidence under subpoena and stressed his neutrality and admiration for both Mr. Hearn and Mr. Collins. In relation to the duties of a manager he said that his duties were to look after the financial and physical welfare of his fighter.  The relationship is governed by the written contract and in his view there were no legal obligations on the manager outside the terms of the agreement.  A bond can develop between a manager and a fighter especially over time.  In relation to the Millstreet fight he said that this was a massive undertaking.  The promoters received a licence from the B.U.I. for the event.  The B.U.I. gives the promoter a licence for an event as distinct from an annual licence.  This licence is subject to conditions which make provision in relation to securing the purse and funds for the small creditors.  Stephen Collins was the underdog at that fight.  	
	In relation to the evidence of alleged approaches by Barry Hearn to Ron Lipton as the referee, Mel Crystle said that such approaches would not be appropriate.  The proper forum for clarifying any matters of this kind is the rules Committee.  He did not agree that the Rules Committee in the case of the Millstreet fight was chaotic.  It was necessary that a certificate be signed for the WBO official, Mr. Montano, confirming that the rules had been gone through and also that the gloves and spares be initialled on behalf of both fighters.
	It is true that there was doubt as to whether Chris Eubank was prepared to fight but there was not chaos at the meeting. Ron Lipton made no complaint to him in relation to the fight.  Mel Crystle confirmed that he was at the party after the fight and that all present were in great form including Freddy King.  He recalled the party in some detail. He said that Stephen Collins was quite restrained but was very satisfied and he described Freddy King as a very restrained individual but said that he was in very good spirits.  
	After giving evidence he requested to come back the following day to clarify one matter.  He then said that he had recalled that he himself had signed the gloves and the certificate on behalf of Stephen Collins who had asked him to represent him at the Rules Committee.
	It is worth noting that the evidence of Mel Crystle contrasts with three pieces of evidence which were in issue.  In the first place Ron Lipton had said that the Rules Committee was chaotic.  Mr. Crystle said that it was not.  Secondly, Freddy King said that he did not join the party and he was very disappointed.  Mr. Crystle recalls that he was there and in very good spirits.  Thirdly, Barry Hearn who gave supplementary evidence after Mr. Crystle's said that he had signed the certificate on behalf of Stephen Collins.  The following day Mr. Crystle asked to be recalled to clarify that it was he, Mr. Crystle, who had signed the gloves and the certificate on behalf of Stephen Collins who had asked him to act as his agent at the Rules Committee.  The evidence of Mr. Lipton, Mr. King and Mr. Hearn has been challenged in regard to each of these three points.  On each of these matters I accept the evidence of Mr. Crystle as more reliable.
	The foregoing concludes the summary of evidence.
	Before dealing with factual controversies I turn to deal with the several legal issues concerning the contractual position between the parties.

THE CONTRACTUAL POSITION
THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
	It is common case that the management agreement operated between the parties for a period of one year commencing on the 12th May, 1994.  This arose because the condition precedent, namely, that Stephen Collins would succeed in his bout against Chris Pyatt, was satisfied.  Stephen Collins does, of course, allege breaches of this contract but it is common case that the management agreement was operative for a year and no point arises as to its status in this regard.

THE MANUSCRIPT AGREEMENT
	A number of legal challenges relate to the issue as to whether, and if so for how long, the manuscript agreement was the effective agreement between the parties.  Stephen Collins maintains that it never came into existence because the bout against Chris Eubank at the King's Hall, Belfast on February 11th, 1995 did not occur.  He says this was a pre-condition to the agreement.  
	I do not agree.  Two specific conditions which are clearly pre-conditions are set out.  First, B Sky B had to agree to a televised "Eubank/Collins fight" as part of the Eubank World Tour agreement, and second, the WBO had to confirm that Stephen Collins' existing Middle Weight title was not at risk.
	I will return to these pre-conditions in a moment:  I consider that the intention of the parties was that these were the only pre-conditions.  I consider that the phrase "the Eubank/Collins fight" includes that fight at Millstreet on the 18th March, 1995.  On the overall balance of evidence I consider that both Barry Hearn and Stephen Collins accepted that on the 
18th March Barry Hearn was manager to Stephen Collins under that agreement.
	It is further argued, however, that the first specified pre-condition was not satisfied.  B Sky B specifically refused to accept Stephen Collins as a substitute for Ray Close and re-negotiated terms accepting the Collins/Eubank fight at Millstreet as part of the Eubank world tour agreement.  The manuscript agreement does not specify that Stephen Collins is to be a substitute for Ray Close:  rather it refers to the "Eubank/Collins fight", albeit at Belfast on the 11th February, 1995.  My view is that if either of the parties had been confronted on the eve of the Millstreet fight with the proposition that Barry Hearn was not Stephen Collins' manager each would have rejected that proposition.  This is consistent with the former's claim that he continued as Stephen Collins' manager, and the latter's allegations of breach of agreement and subsequent letter of 6th June.
	I hold that the manuscript agreement was not specific to the fight taking place in Belfast on February 11th, that it was acknowledged in and supplemented by the schedule to the bout agreement as detailed hereunder and, furthermore, I consider that the parties proceeded upon the basis that a management agreement was in place which covered the Millstreet fight.  I also hold that the pre-conditions to the manuscript agreement were satisfied.  
	A further argument was advanced to the effect that if the manuscript agreement did come into existence it was cancelled or replaced by the insertion of clause 4 of the first schedule to the bout agreement which was ultimately signed by Stephen Collins on the 17th February, 1995.  Clause 4 provides:-

	"The fighter agrees that should he defeat Chris Eubank and win the WBO Super Middleweight title then the fighter agrees to extend the management agreement dated the 9th May, 1994 with Barry Hearn for a period of one year as and from the termination date of his existing management contract."

	In support of this argument it is pointed out that the management agreement in the schedule to the bout agreement was different to the management agreement in the manuscript agreement and this is accepted by the Plaintiffs.  The position of the Plaintiffs in response to this contention is that they are happy to rely on the bout agreement in circumstances where it is accepted that Barry Hearn is a party to the bout agreement.  They further point out that it would be quite unacceptable if Barry Hearn's position as a party under the manuscript agreement could be altered by the bout agreement in circumstances where he was not a party to and could not avail of the benefit of the latter.
	In the English proceedings Counsel for Barry Hearn accepted that his rights arose under the bout agreement.  Counsel for the Plaintiffs in the present proceedings have contended, notwithstanding, that Barry Hearn's rights during the relevant period which include the 18th March and 6th June, 1995 were governed by the manuscript agreement but they have also said that they are happy to rely on the bout agreement provided Barry Hearn is a party to that agreement.  
	I think the probability is that the parties to the bout agreement considered that they were therein recording an existing agreement (namely, the manuscript agreement) between them together with supplementary provisions which included an amendment to the terms of the management agreement.  The evidence of Steve Dawson who negotiated the bout agreement with Stephen Collins' solicitor Mr. Delahunt was that he raised the issue with Mr. Delahunt as to whether clause 4 should be in the bout agreement and was reassured on this point by Mr. Delahunt.  His evidence is not contradicted.  I consider that the agreement between Barry Hearn and Stephen Collins in relation to management was contained in the manuscript agreement as acknowledged in and supplemented by the schedule to the bout agreement.
	Barry Hearn was clearly a party to the manuscript agreement which I have held came into existence because the pre-conditions were satisfied and did not go out of existence because of the change of venue.  That being the case it would be quite unjust in my view if his position under the manuscript agreement could be altered to his detriment by means of a further agreement to which he was not a party and pursuant to which he could assert no rights.
	A further point is made on behalf of Stephen Collins to the effect that the manuscript agreement did not come into existence because of the failure to permit Stephen Collins to get legal advice and also because of the pressure under which he was placed to sign the manuscript agreement.  I am not impressed by either argument.  Stephen Collins has demonstrated (in the first draft of the bout agreement) a capacity to assert his position in relation to legal advice but in the case of the manuscript agreement he did not do so.   Furthermore I do not think he was under pressure in any way which is relevant to this submission because on his own evidence he said that at the time he felt himself in a strong negotiating position and in fact did negotiate.  He said, quite fairly, that he signed the agreement because he dearly wanted the bout with Chris Eubank.  
	The cases relied upon by the Defendants do not in my view assist them.  In particular Costello J., as he then was, held on the 29th April, 1982 in O'Flanagan -v- Ray Ger Limited that the Defendant in that case had a strong and forceful personality and had exercised considerable influence amounting to domination over the deceased.  The agreement was "grievously unfair to the deceased's wife and family".  That situation contrasts starkly with the situation of Stephen Collins in the present case where he candidly admits he felt in a strong bargaining position and actually did bargain.
	I reject, further, any argument to the effect that Stephen Collins found himself under pressure from economic duress and for the same reason.

THE BOUT AGREEMENT
	It follows from the foregoing that the manuscript agreement came into existence, did not go out of existence by reason of the change of venue and governed the Millstreet fight. Stephen Collins argues further, however, that Barry Hearn is not entitled to rely on the bout agreement and he also says that even if the manuscript agreement did come into existence it was replaced by the latter.
	This general Defence is articulated by means of a number of specific arguments which include reference to the doctrine of privity of contract where it is stressed that the exceptions to the general principle that only parties to an agreement are entitled to enforce must be strictly applied.  It is contended that the only party to the bout agreement was Matchroom Boxing and that it was clear that they were not acting as agent for Barry Hearn.  In relation to this latter point reliance was placed on Eurymedon [1974] 1 All ER 1015 and in particular to an extract from the judgment of Lord Wilberforce at page 1018 which in turn referred to the leading case of Scruttons Limited -v- Midland Silicones Limited [1962] AC 446.  In the latter, however, Lord Reid had referred to the possibility of success of the agency argument if four conditions were satisfied, namely,

(a)	that it was intended by the parties that the non-party would be protected;
(b)	that it was clear that the contracting party was doing so as agent for the non-party,
(c)	that the contracting party had authority so to do and
(d)	that any difficulties about consideration moving from the non-contracting party were overcome.  

	In my view these four conditions are satisfied in the bout agreement.  It is clear that both parties were aware that only a human individual as distinct from a company could be a manager of a boxer.  Clause 4 of the First Schedule to the bout agreement must be given some meaning and cannot be so interpreted or applied as to have no effect or no enforceability.  That I think would be the result if the Defendant's argument was correct.  From this it follows, I think, that the parties to the bout agreement intended that Barry Hearn as a human individual would have the benefit and be under the obligations specified therein, and to that extent it was clear, in my view, that Matchroom Boxing was contracting as agent for Barry Hearn.  The company clearly had authority, in my view, to do that.  The consideration which moved from Barry Hearn as an individual was his undertaking to extend the management agreement and also of course to be bound by its terms and provide appropriate services to Stephen Collins thereunder.
	It follows that Barry Hearn is entitled to sue on foot of the bout agreement and also that he is bound by any obligations arising thereunder for a year following the termination date of the management agreement.  Further submissions were made in relation to the trust doctrine, collateral agreement and specific performance but in light of the foregoing it is not necessary for me to deal with these further submissions.
	In the result I hold that the management agreement as acknowledged in and supplemented by the bout agreement was extended for one year from the 11th May, 1995.  Barry Hearn was accordingly at all material times manager to Stephen Collins under the management agreement or under the management agreement as extended.

ALLEGED BREACHES OF CONTRACT
	I turn, accordingly, to deal with the issue of the alleged breaches of this agreement.
	Before dealing with allegations of fundamental breach, I propose to deal with allegations of numerous breaches which are not claimed to be fundamental and with other criticisms amounting to complaints by Stephen Collins as to how Barry Hearn carried out his duties under their management agreement.  The Plaintiffs in response to these various allegations submitted that these breaches could be conveniently categorised under four headings and this categorisation was accepted, for the purpose of concluding submissions, by Counsel on behalf of Stephen Collins. I propose to adopt them as well.  These categories relate to the various breaches alleged to have taken place:

(a)	prior to the 15th January 1995;
(b)	between the bout agreement and the 18th March, 1995;

(c)	between the 18th March, 1995 and the 6th June; and
(d)	subsequent to 6th June, 1995.

PRIOR TO THE 15TH JANUARY, 1995
	These allegations include a failure of Barry Hearn to follow up on promotion offers and in particular his failure to negotiate with Frank Warren/Sports Network in October 1994 and his failure to re-negotiate a better deal for Stephen Collins for the Hong Kong fight in September of that year; there is also the allegation that Barry Hearn failed to ensure that Freddy King travelled with Stephen Collins to Boston and there are a number of complaints in relation to the Boston trip concerning the absence of suitable arrangements for Stephen Collins.
	In this context Stephen Collins points to Clause 3.1 of the management agreement which provides:-

	"The manager will arrange the boxers professional boxing affairs and engagements so as to secure for the boxer the most financial beneficial profits and rewards."

	In response, the Plaintiffs point to the fact that the management agreement which was drafted by Stephen Collins' solicitor should be construed strictly against him and that this agreement does not in fact provide for any of the matters now complained of.  For example, it does not specify that Mr. King should travel with Mr. Collins.  It is further pointed out that no complaints were made by Stephen Collins during this period and also that Stephen Collins with clear knowledge of those breaches entered into an extension of the  management agreement by signing the manuscript agreement on the 15th January, 1995.  Rather than exercise his right of termination under clause 6 of the management agreement Stephen Collins renewed it.  In any event there is no claim for damages arising from loss.
	I have carefully considered the evidence on both sides and also the arguments.  I am not prepared to hold that any of the matters referred to amounted to breaches which are now actionable of the manuscript agreement during this period.  No claim for damages is made in respect of these allegations and it is not asserted that any of the alleged breaches were fundamental.   By renewing the agreement on 15th January, 1995 I consider that Stephen Collins waived any rights to sue on foot of these alleged breaches.  I will refer later in a little more detail to the alleged failure of Mr. Hearn to follow up on the promotion offer from Frank Warren when I come to deal with allegations of fundamental breach.

PERIOD BETWEEN THE BOUT AGREEMENT AND THE 18TH MARCH, 1995
	These allegations include an allegation that there was a breach by Mr. Hearn because he continued as manager to Chris Eubank and was involved in a large promotional arrangement with B Sky B relating to Mr. Eubank.  
	Before dealing with other breaches alleged during this period I should say at once that I do not accept this proposition.  I consider that the very foundation of the manuscript agreement and, indeed, the bout agreement was the Collins/Eubank fight and that those agreements were reached between the parties in the full knowledge that Barry Hearn was the manager of Chris Eubank and would be promoter of the bout.  Furthermore, Stephen Collins was aware in general terms of the Eubank world tour arrangement between Matchroom Boxing and B Sky B.  No point arose at the time from Stephen Collins or from his solicitor in relation to this ground and I do not think that clause 3.3 of the management agreement can be construed in a manner which would force Barry Hearn to cease to manage Chris Eubank, to withdraw from the B Sky B agreement or to procure such withdrawal by Matchroom Boxing or not to promote the bout at Millstreet.  On the contrary the very basis upon which the agreement was reached contemplated that the Plaintiffs would do these things and indeed the large purse arranged for Millstreet was, I think, closely connected with the fact that the bout was accepted by B Sky B as part of the Eubank world tour.  I must therefore reject Stephen Collins' argument in relation to this.
	In this period in addition, apart from the allegation that Barry Hearn had "nobbled" the referee of the Millstreet bout which I will deal with later when I come to deal with allegations of fundamental breach, there were a number of specific allegations made in relation to the lack of arrangements or the inadequacy of the arrangements made for Stephen Collins while he was in Las Vegas including arrangements in relation to accommodation, training, sparring and travelling.  Again complaints are made in these proceedings in relation to his return journey to London and Romford and his further journey to Cork and Millstreet.
	The Plaintiffs in response to these allegations (apart from dealing with the issue of fundamental conflict which I  will deal with separately) say that Clause 3.3 of the management agreement when properly construed specifically refers only to engagement in "contracts or agreements" as distinct, I understand, from performance thereunder.  If this is the submission of the Plaintiffs I reject it.  One cannot "indirectly" engage in a contract or an agreement and my view is that the intention of clause 3.3. is to cast upon Barry Hearn an obligation to avoid conflict under such contracts or agreements with his duties or obligations to Stephen Collins.  However this clause must be read in the context of the entire agreement and as I have already said I do not think that the fact that Barry Hearn continued to manage Chris Eubank or to promote the Millstreet bout or to avail of the advantages of the B Sky B agreement (all of which I hold were known to both parties at the time of entering the manuscript agreement) could constitute a breach of clause 3.3.  This does not mean, however, that clause 3.3 is entirely irrelevant in regard to the implementation of these agreements by Barry Hearn.  I think both Barry Hearn himself and Stephen Collins agreed that he had to operate even-handedly as between Stephen Collins and Chris Eubank and I consider that any departure from this standard would in principle be a breach of clause 3.3.  This point is in addition, of course, to any breach which would qualify as a fundamental breach which would remain a fundamental breach even if clause 3.3 did not apply at all.
	The Plaintiffs submit, further, however, that Stephen Collins did not rely on the provisions of clause 6 entitling him to terminate the agreement on thirty days notice in the event of a breach.  They further point out that no loss resulted to Stephen Collins from these alleged breaches and indeed no damages are claimed.  It is also acknowledged by the Plaintiffs that both parties approached the management contract on the basis that they were still entitled to look out for their own interest.  No criticism is made of this.  Stephen Collins acknowledges that in December 1994 and January 1995 he was having consultations with Frank Warren with a view to arranging a promotion for himself which he could present to Barry Hearn as his manager.  He even contemplated that Frank Warren might be interested in buying out Barry Hearn's management contract.  As things turned out, however, the offer of a bout with Chris Eubank once Ray Close withdrew became known in January 1995 and despite his growing disenchantment with Barry Hearn and advice from Frank Warren that he would be taking on the whole of Matchroom, Stephen Collins signed the manuscript agreement on the 15th January, 1995 because above all he wanted the match with Chris Eubank and this was the way to get it.  
	Once again my view is that there is no clearly made out actionable breach of contract during this period against Barry Hearn.  Stephen Collins came to rely on Tony Quinn in the period immediately prior to the Millstreet fight and even if he did not make himself inaccessible, communications were indirect at best.  The evidence in relation to the night of the fight at Millstreet is confused and even if I was prepared to hold, which I am not, that specific items such as buckets, water, towels and so on were not provided for Stephen Collins these specific complaints of themselves would not amount in all the circumstances to a breach of contract.
	On the other hand, however, I am not prepared to hold, as alleged by Barry Hearn, that immediately after the fight Stephen Collins became arrogant and overly triumphalist.  I accept that he was exhausted after the fight, collapsed in his dressing room, had to be wrapped in silver foil, that he was attended closely by Tony Quinn but that he subsequently gave a press conference and attended late night and early morning celebrations at which all in attendance, including his trainer Freddy King, were in good spirits.

THE 18TH MARCH, 1995 TO 6TH JUNE, 1995
	The allegation made in relation to this period is that Mr. Hearn attacked the credibility of Frank Warren/Sports Network at the purse-bid ceremony in New York on 
29th May.  The attack has been admitted by Barry Hearn although he does not accept that it extended for as long as the Defendant alleges and he also claims that it was futile as an attempt to have Sports Network prevented from bidding.
	As this is an allegation of fundamental breach I will deal with it shortly with other such allegations. 
	 
THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO 6TH JUNE, 1995
	The allegation relating to this period will be dealt with below under the heading "The Valcarcel Correspondence" but first I propose to make some introductory observations on the law relating to fundamental breach of contract.

FUNDAMENTAL BREACH OF CONTRACT
	I think it is important to clarify the different legal consequences which arise where there have been breaches of an agreement as distinct from fundamental breaches.  This matter is dealt with by O'Keeffe J., as he then was, in Carvill -v- Irish Industrial Bank Limited [1968] IR 325 at p.345 as follows:-

	"In principle it is difficult to understand how an act can be relied upon to justify dismissal unless it is known at the time of dismissal.  It must be conceded that there can be some breaches of contract so fundamental as to show that the contract is entirely repudiated by the party committing them, and that such an act might be relied upon in an action for wrongful dismissal, not as justifying the dismissal, but as supporting a plea that the dismissed servant had himself put an end to the contract.  Where the act is not of so fundamental a character but would warrant the dismissal of the servant at the option of the employer, it appears to me to be quite illogical to say that an employer may be heard to say that he dismissed his servant on a ground unknown to him at the actual time of dismissal."

	Subsequently in Glover -v- BLN Limited [1973] IR 388 Walsh J. observed  (page 426) as follows:-

	"Furthermore, as was settled by this Court in Carvill -v- Irish Industrial Bank Limited an employer in defending an action by an employee for wrongful summary dismissal, cannot rely upon misconduct which was not known by the employer at the time of the dismissal.  I would add that the misconduct, if known but not in fact used as a ground for dismissal at the time, cannot be relied upon afterwards in an effort to justify the dismissal."

	A distinction emerges from these passages between breaches and fundamental breaches.  
	If a fundamental breach comes to light after the dismissal it may still be relied upon by the employer to make a claim not that this subsequently known ground was relied upon as a reason for or otherwise justified the dismissal, but rather that the contract at the time of the dismissal had already been repudiated.

ALLEGATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL BREACH 
THE  "NOBBLING" ISSUE
	In the course of his evidence, Mr Lipton was compelled to contradict or heavily qualify himself on a number of occasions.  Even before he gave his evidence questions were raised in relation to it as I indicated in the introduction to my summary of his evidence earlier in this judgment.  It might be thought, however, that inaccuracy of recollection on points of detail or even on points of substance are in a different category to the fabrication of a serious allegation that Barry Hearn attempted, on two occasions, to influence him against Stephen Collins in the circumstances described.  The nobbling allegation is flatly contradicted by Barry Hearn as a fabrication.  Mr Gallagher S.C. for Barry Hearn  has submitted that a number of serious questions remain in relation to Ron Lipton's evidence.
	Amongst these questions are the fact that there is no explanation for the assertion on the twelfth day of this trial that only one approach was made by Barry Hearn; that the allegation was altered to specify that the second approach was made to Mr Lipton when he was on the way to the ring on the night of the fight prior to the match in order to correct same in response to Barry Hearn's reaction that an approach made on the way to the ring for the fight proper would have been impossible given the crowd and time constraints; that there was no complaint made by Mr Lipton either to Mr Montano of the WBO or Mel Crystal of the BUI in circumstances where Mr Lipton was aware that Barry Hearn managed Stephen Collins arising out of his phone call with Stephen Collins in April, 1995; that Mr Lipton exhibited an animus against Barry Hearn which was shown by his insistence in repeatedly trying to link Barry Hearn with acts of intimidation in the hotel in Millstreet, despite my prior ruling that no reference should be made to same; that the nobbling allegations were completely at variance with the friendly letter written by Mr Lipton to Barry Hearn shortly after the Millstreet fight; that he described his post Millstreet non-appointment by the WBO as a referee as a punishment by the WBO whom he associated to some extent with Barry Hearn, and finally, apart from the inherent self contradictions, Ron Lipton's description of the rules committee as chaotic, was in flat contradiction to the evidence of Mel Crystal that it was not.  
	The allegation of nobbling is one of particular gravity.  Whilst I accept that the standard of proof required, in relation to this allegation, is proof on the balance of probabilities I consider that the observation of Mr Justice Keane in Masterfoods Limited t/a Mars Ireland -v- HB Ice Cream Limited [1993] ILRM 145 following at page 183 where he says:

	"It may well be that that standard should be applied with some degree of flexibility and that the Courts should require allegations of particular gravity to be clearly established in evidence" 

is apposite to my consideration of this allegation, although I quite accept, as was made clear by Keane J. in the same context, that this does not mean that a different standard of proof is to be applied.
	In my view it would be unsafe to accept that Barry Hearn approached Ron Lipton on either one or both of the occasions claimed, because I do not consider that this particularly grave allegation has been clearly established in evidence.  
	I should make it plain that in refusing to accept that this allegation has been clearly made out, I am not rejecting the evidence of Stephen Collins that in the telephone call in April, 1997 Ron Lipton told him of these alleged nobbling approaches.  I consider that Stephen Collins generally gave his evidence in a conscientious and truthful fashion and I accept his evidence that in this telephone call, Ron Lipton made these allegations to Stephen Collins against Barry Hearn.

THE VALCARCEL CORRESPONDENCE
	Despite voluntary discovery, this correspondence only came into the hands of Mr. Delahunt, the Solicitor for Stephen Collins on Friday 31st October and was first mentioned in the course of this trial on the following Tuesday 4th November (the eleventh day of the hearing).  This correspondence had been passed to Mr Delahunt by a third party, apparently Sports Network, a company under the control of Frank Warren an admitted rival of Barry Hearn's.  The manner of the introduction of this correspondence was every bit as controversial as the manner of the introduction of the assertions made by Ron Lipton.  
	It will be recalled that Barry Hearn considered himself Stephen Collins' manager up to the 13th October, 1995 when the 30 days notice, which he served, pursuant to clause 6 of the management agreement expired.  In any event the letter dated 6th June, 1995 terminating what was therein described as the prior agreement was stamped and received by the Plaintiffs on the 9th June.  
	This correspondence comprises a series of letters from Barry Hearn to Francisco Valcarcel then President of the WBO.  In the first, dated 7th June, 1995 Barry Hearn raises a doubt as to whether Frank Warren really intended to promote the Collins Eubank re-match before the 31st July as stipulated at the purse bid ceremony in New York on the 29th May.  He suggested that "Mr Warren will ignore the orders of the WBO and instigate either a medical delay or some other reason...".  This suggestion carried with it the inference that Stephen Collins would be a party to an instigated medical reason for postponement of the fight in breach of the arrangement specified.  The letter presses strongly for the right to have Chris Eubank fight for an interim championship "... on the 29th July, with the winner going on to fight Steve Collins for the official title on a 50/50 basis".  This request, if it had been carried out, would have meant that Stephen Collins' entitlement to a 75% share of the purse as champion, would have been reduced to a 50% share.  The letter did, indeed, acknowledge that if Frank Warren was not in a position to promote the fight then his deposit should be distributed to the champion and the challenger in accordance with the WBO rules.
	The second letter in the series is dated 13th June 1995 - coincidentally the date on which Barry Hearn wrote to Stephen Collins stating that he was staggered at the contents of Stephen Collins letter to him of 6th June, 1995 and writing "to formally advise you that I do not accept your termination of our agreement and in an attempt that you will reconsider your position after you have had a time to reflect further on the matter".  
	On the same day he wrote a letter to Mr Valcarcel noting that it would come as no surprise "that Steve Collins has pulled out of his planned defence against Chris Eubank on the grounds of illness".  In the course of the letter he writes:

	"Before a delay in this contest can be allowed, surely we must insist on a reputable doctor's certificate outlining details of the illness (?) that Collins is suffering from.  It is eight weeks before the fight, so one assumes that it must be quite a serious illness!"
	The request for an interim championship fight for Chris Eubank is repeated, this time supported by reference to precedent with a repetition of the suggestion that the winner would fight Steve Collins once again "obviously on a 50/50 basis".  
	The next letter is dated the 15th June, 1995 and commences:

	"Dear Francisco,  
	I have heard now that Steve Collins has an injured finger (!) and will not be 	able to train for two weeks and therefore promoter Frank Warren wishes to 	postpone the fight until September."  

	The earlier requests are repeated, the finger injury is criticised as a valid reason for postponing the contest when Barry Hearn points that "an injured finger does not stop a fighter running, skipping and generally keeping himself 100% fit - it purely prevents him from sparring."  He further writes:
	
	"We all know, I believe that this is just an excuse and that Frank Warren has 	been unable to come up with a venue that can stage the fight within the WBO 	time scale and clearly he does not want to lose his deposit, hence Mr Collins' 	very serious injury to his finger!" 

	A later paragraph refers to "these ridiculous excuses".  The letter is insistent upon a decision on the interim championship proposal and points out:
 
	"Time is of course of the essence and bearing in mind the poor excuse of Steve Collins' finger injury, I hope the WBO will now fax me to confirm that Chris Eubank may fight an interim world championship on July 29th ..."

	A second letter of the same date emphasises that Mr Eubank will face serious financial loss "... due to the non-performance of Mr Warren of not promoting the Eubank/Collins fight under the deadline..."
	The next letter dated the 19th June, 1995 emphasises the huge financial losses and includes the following:

	"Steve Collins' injury to his finger is laughable and I trust you will give us the opportunity now to keep this title active in line with past practice..."

	A further letter of 20th June emphasises that the purse bid was conditional on the fight taking place before July 31st and reiterates that there is a precedent within the WBO rules for previous interim championships when a mandatory fight cannot take place by the prescribed date.  "I trust again that we will maintain consistency in our decisions by ordering another interim championship prior to the end of July".
	The last letter in the series is dated 26th June by which time an arrangement had been worked out.  This letter seeks written confirmation of what is described as the "following compromise agreement in respect of Chris Eubank and Steve Collins mandatory title fight:-

	1.	WBO will agree to Chris Eubank having a 10 round non-title fight on the 29th July against Jose Ingacio Barreutabena of Spain.
	2.	Barreutabena will be installed in the WBO ratings in July at number 4 to replace Frankie Liles, who has been included in the WBO rankings, but it is in fact the WBA super middleweight champion.
	3. 	Should for any reason Frank Warren the promoter announce that the Eubank/Collins fight will not take place prior to the 9th September, 1995 then the Barreutabena/Eubank contest will be recognised as an interim title fight under the WBO rules".

	The explanation given by Barry Hearn in evidence for the foregoing correspondence was that he was acting as manager for Mr Eubank who was pressing him on a daily basis to arrange an interim fight given that the Collins/Eubank rematch was going to be postponed; that any criticism of Stephen Collins could not damage the latter's position which was protected under the WBO rules which provided that once a medical certificate had been furnished the title holder could not be stripped of his title unless he failed to defend it within 180 days; that the entire correspondence was tactical and aimed at achieving the result which was actually achieved namely that Chris Eubank got a fight before the Collins/Eubank rematch, Steve Collins remained champion entitled to his full purse on that rematch and Frank Warren remained promoter.  Barry Hearn explained in evidence that at the time he did not know the date (subsequently established as 9th September) selected for the Collins/Eubank rematch and he also agreed that he had no contact with Steve Collins at the time (despite several attempts by him) so that his assertion that the finger injury (later clarified by Steve Collins in evidence in this case as an injury to his knuckle) was based purely on the information that he derived from newspaper reports.
	I am unable to accept that this explanation given by Barry Hearn in evidence in this trial represents the whole truth.  I am asked by the author of these letters to reject their plain, insistent and repeated meaning in favour of an explanation which leaves me unconvinced.  I accept that Barry Hearn's purpose in writing this correspondence was to achieve a benefit for Chris Eubank, whom he also managed at this time.  I consider that he was motivated by hostility against Frank Warren, who had succeeded, despite his best efforts to put an obstacle in his way, in winning the promotion of the Collins/Eubank rematch at the purse bid ceremony in New York on the 29th May thereby taking over one of his fighters as he has himself put it.  On the face of it, this correspondence seeks to damage Steve Collins in two fundamental ways, namely by interfering with his 75% share entitlement to the Collins/Eubank rematch purse and secondly, by suggesting that he was a party to a phoney medical excuse in order to achieve a postponement of that rematch.  I have been furnished with a copy of the WBO rules and I do not accept Barry Hearn's claim that Stephen Collins' position as title holder was absolutely impregnable under those rules once a medical certificate had been furnished.  Rule 8 refers to a champion being justifiably disabled but specifies that "such disability has to be proven to and accepted by the world championship's committee".  I do not accept it as clear beyond argument, as Barry Hearn contended, that the WBO could not accede to the various suggestions put forward in the Valcarcel correspondence to the detriment of Steve Collins.  
	My conclusion is that if Barry Hearn was at that time under any obligation as manager to Steve Collins, this correspondence comprises fundamental breach of such obligation.  

THE PURSE BID
	It was put to Barry Hearn in cross-examination on the third day of the hearing  that he attended the purse bid ceremony in New York on the 29th May, 1995 in relation to the Collins/Eubank rematch, and that he addressed the presiding officer making various highly critical remarks about Sports Network and Mr Frank Warren.  Barry Hearn's initial reply was: 

	"No, I'm afraid I don't (remember).  It doesn't mean to say I didn't make them.  	I just don't recall them." 

Further on in evidence it was suggested to him that he spent close to half an hour damnifying Sports Network and Mr Warren in particular, that his remarks reflected on the integrity of Mr Warren and that he suggested that he should not be permitted to bid.  He was asked did he recall any of that and he said "No, but it doesn't surprise me".  Barry Hearn went on to specify that if a company is registered and they have paid a sanction fee then despite his personal feelings about Sports Network "I don't see it's possible to stop them bidding".  It was put to him that he did his best to stop them, to which he replied "It would be a futile exercise.  You can't stop the bidding.  I may have done my best to certainly criticise them, as I would have done for effectively, in my view, taking away one of my fighters when he was under contract".   Later in evidence he accepted again, that he had been highly critical of Sports Network and Frank Warren, but claimed that it wasn't a "long damning".  
	In evidence Stephen Collins claimed that if this attack had succeeded in preventing Sports Network from bidding or being accepted it would have ruined everything for him and deprived him of the £1.2 million purse.  Barry Hearn claims on the other hand that he could not prevent Sports Network from bidding or being accepted and that the attack was a futile exercise.  
	Once again I think this is not the whole truth.  Barry Hearn acknowledges that he attended the purse bid ceremony as manager of Chris Eubank  and Stephen Collins.  It is accepted generally that a fighter's "pay-day" comes if and when he wins a title which establishes him as a champion entitled to 75% (or 80%) of the purse involved in defending his title for as long as he remains champion.  I cannot see how his manager, with an acknowledged obligation to do his best to achieve optimum earnings for his fighter, can justifiably attend  a purse bid ceremony and launch an attack on the credibility of this substantial bidder and even go as far as suggesting that he should not be allowed to bid. 
	I do not consider that Barry Hearn spent his time engaged in exercises which he can subsequently describe as futile.  He has asked me to accept that the attack on Frank Warren and Sports Network was futile.  If so, why did he travel to New York in order to launch it?  He has asked me to accept that the Valcarcel correspondence means something completely and wholly different to what it plainly and repeatedly says.  In both instances my impression is that Barry Hearn was engaged in an attack on and an attempt to damage his rival Frank Warren and Sports Network and that he permitted himself in so doing to endanger the fundamental interests of his fighter Steve Collins, whether this was his primary objective or merely an ancillary by-product.  Whatever the entire truth of the matter, I am satisfied that the attack made by Barry Hearn on Frank Warren and Sports Network at the purse bid ceremony in New York on the 29th May, 1995 constituted a fundamental breach of his obligations to Steve Collins because it was diametrically opposed to his acknowledged obligation to achieve the best possible financial outcome for Steve Collins.  I do not accept that this attack was futile and the fact that it did not succeed in preventing Sports Network from bidding and being accepted as a bidder does not, to my mind, mean that the attack itself may now be regarded as innocent or excusable.  On the contrary, in my view, it was a fundamental breach of Barry Hearn's obligation to Stephen Collins.  It follows that no management fees could become owing to the Plaintiffs arising out of the Collins/Eubank re-match.

THE REQUEST FOR DIRECT PAYMENT
	Following the purse bid, Barry Hearn approached Mr Roberts of Sports Network and requested him to pay the 25% management fee direct to him.  Again he claims that this was not seriously meant and he admits that he had no entitlement to be paid direct.  I am not prepared to hold that this particular request of itself was a fundamental breach of agreement, but it does have another significance;  namely, it is consistent only with the view that Barry Hearn at that time regarded  himself - as indeed he has said in evidence - as the manager of Stephen Collins.  If a distinction is to be made between what Mr Hearn at any particular point in time considered to be his legal obligation to Stephen Collins on the one hand, and on the other what actually as a matter of law was the true position, - a matter to which I will return later in this judgment - it is instructive to note that Barry Hearn considered himself manager to Stephen Collins when he attended at the purse bid ceremony on the 29th May and also during the entire period of the Valcarcel correspondence which commenced on the 7th June and concluded on the 26th.

MANAGER OF OPPONENTS
	A further allegation of fundamental breach was made on the general basis that Barry Hearn should not have continued as manager of Chris Eubank and indeed should not have continued as manager of Chris Pyatt and that so to do amounted to a fundamental breach of agreement.  As already indicated I do not accept these contentions.  My view of the two contracts namely the management agreement of the 9th May, 1994 and the manuscript agreement of 15th January, 1995 is that they were entered into by the contracting parties upon the basis that Barry Hearn was manager of both the challenger and the title holder in each case and that this was accepted by the challenger namely Stephen Collins.  That seems to me to be the common sense interpretation of the agreements themselves and it is also the basis advanced on behalf of Barry Hearn and accepted by Stephen Collins in evidence.  He repeatedly said that all he wanted from Barry Hearn was a fair deal and equal treatment.  I therefore reject the general argument that Barry Hearn under these agreements was required to retire as manager of the title holder and that by remaining as manager he is in fundamental breach of those agreements.

ALLEGATION OF REPUDIATORY BREACH AGAINST STEPHEN COLLINS
	I will deal with this topic later in my judgment when I come to deal with Stephen collins' own behaviour.

FURTHER LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
THE LETTER OF 6th JUNE 1995
	The text of that letter is as follows:

	"I have now had the opportunity to consider, in detail, the terms and conditions under which you previously agreed to act in relation to my boxing activities.

	In this regard it is of great concern to me that you have obviously chosen to disregard your obligations to me and have engaged in activities which clearly demonstrate your continuing intention to pursue your own independent interests (and those of others with whom you are engaged by contract or agreement).

	In these circumstances I note your breach of our previous agreement and accordingly please take this letter as formal notice of termination (which I send by registered post).  Please note that any future correspondence or communication that you or your associates intend to make to me should be directed through my solicitors."

	The Plaintiffs have contended that this letter is not an attempt to operate clause 6 of the agreement.  If it had been it would have formally given thirty days notice.  It does not.  The main thrust of the letter, to my mind, asserts a breach by Barry Hearn of the agreement and whilst this is not specified in the letter, I have held that there was a fundamental breach on the 29th May and equally a fundamental breach in the Valcarcel correspondence commencing on the 6th June.  The thrust of the letter of the 6th June is more consistent, in my view, with an acceptance by Stephen Collins of the fact that Barry Hearn has repudiated their agreement than it is with an attempt to implement clause 6 thereof.
	This interpretation is re-enforced by Stephen Collins' own evidence on day twenty-one (page 13) of the transcript of the trial when he said:-

	"I requested my solicitor to inform Barry Hearn I wanted to regularise the whole situation and tell him officially, in case he was in any doubt, that I was no longer requesting him to be engaged with me in any way at all, because he had breached our previous agreement of contract... I know I did not tell him until the 6th June; so therefore he would be still under the impression that he was my manager.  So if he was under the impression or was acting on my behalf as my manager, for him to go to the purse bids on the 29th May supposedly being my manager for the person who supposedly being my manger for my manager to go to those purse bids to try to prevent the biggest or best purse bid being accepted which would have been the best possible - ....him saying he was under the impression he was my manager so if my manager is going to go to the purse bid and say do not let Frank Warren purse bid because I do not like, whatever he does not like about him, he was preventing me from earning the biggest pay day available to me.  That is a definite breach of a contract by a guy who says he believed he was acting on my behalf as a manager."

	The foregoing is an extract only of a long answer in the course of which, it should be noted, Stephen Collins also referred to the nobbling of the referee.  I have held that on the evidence I am not satisfied to hold that the nobbling occurred.  If it had I would certainly also have held that that was a fundamental breach.  The fact remains that Stephen Collins gave evidence in this passage and elsewhere that in writing the letter of 6th June he relied on Barry Hearn's behaviour at the purse bid ceremony and also on the fact that he was attempting to strip him of his title which he was aware of through the rumour mill (albeit that proof only subsequently came to hand). 
	In my view three alleged fundamental breaches of contract were operating in the mind of Stephen Collins when he wrote the letter of 6th June, 1995.  First, Barry Hearn's behaviour at the purse bid ceremony which pre-dated the letter of the 6th June, was known to Stephen Collins, and was part of the reason why he wrote the letter accepting the repudiation.  Second, the "nobbling" was also operating in the mind of Stephen Collins when he wrote that letter but I have rejected the evidence in relation to that so clearly it would not justify an acceptance of a repudiation on that ground.  Third, the "Valcarcel correspondence" breach was rumoured, prior to the 6th June, and this rumour was relied upon by Stephen Collins in writing his letter of 6th June.  There was no proof that it actually happened until the 7th June.  My understanding of the law in relation to fundamental breaches of contract, however, is that any fundamental breach can be relied upon as supporting a plea made at any time that the party in fundamental breach has himself put an end to the contract by repudiating it.  I do not understand this to depend on the timing of the letter of 6th June in the present case.  Be that as it may,  my view is that Stephen Collins by his letter of 6th June accepted the repudiation of the contract by Barry Hearn and was entitled so to do because of the fundamental breach at the purse bid ceremony on the 29th May.  This acceptance was made known to Barry Hearn on date of receipt which was 9th June, 1995.
 	In addition to this finding, however, and if contrary to my foregoing conclusion, a management contract between Barry Hearn and Stephen Collins was in existence during the period of the Valcarcel correspondence namely between 7th June and 26th June, 1995, then in my view Barry Hearn was thereby in fundamental breach of any such agreement and Stephen Collins is entitled to make a successful plea that Barry Hearn himself put an end to the contract by the fundamental breach amounting to repudiation thereof in that correspondence.

THE FRANK WARREN PROMOTION OFFER
	The complaint in this regard is in a somewhat different category to 'fundamental breach'.  Complaint is made by Stephen Collins that Barry Hearn was in breach of the manuscript agreement in the way he handled an offer which originally came through Barney Eastwood in September 1994.  The promotion would have been a fight against Sean Cummins with a purse of £100,000.  Subsequently this was amended to a purse of £80,000 with £20,000 worth of tickets.  Initially Barry Hearn was interested and indicated it was worth following up but subsequently it emerged that the offer was not from Barney Eastwood himself but was made on behalf of Frank Warren and Sports Network.  Stephen Collins said that as soon as this became apparent Barry Hearn lost all interest and advised him to reject the promotion and there are letters in the correspondence indicating this and also asserting that Barry Hearn was Stephen Collins' manager and any approaches should be made to Barry Hearn.  
	Barry Hearn's explanation for this advice was two fold.  At one point he indicated that he thought the promotion might have clashed with the Hong Kong venue.  In fact the Hong Kong venue was in late October whereas this promotion was initially suggested for September.  At another point Barry Hearn indicated that the offer was untrustworthy, that it had changed and that there was no guarantee that the promoter would deliver.
	This particular episode was not relied upon by Stephen Collins as a fundamental breach and probably correctly so because following this Stephen Collins participated in the Hong Kong promotion and subsequently the proposed Boston bout and of course in the New Year he signed the agreement dated the 15th January, 1995 which was followed by the bout agreement of the 17th February.  Furthermore this particular head of complaint was not dealt with in any great depth in the evidence and accordingly, I do not think it would be proper for me to make any ruling as to whether Mr. Hearn's handling of this promotional offer amounted to a fundamental breach or any breach.  I would note, however, that if I had been satisfied after full and adequate testing in this hearing that there had been a failure on the part of Barry Hearn to follow up the potentially advantageous promotional offer for a Stephen Collins' bout without adequate excuse or explanation and without subsequent acquiescence on the part of Stephen Collins, I would have held that this too was a fundamental breach.  I consider - and I think both parties agree - that the core obligation of a manager is to procure the best financial advantage for his fighter and any substantial breach of that obligation would in my view constitute a fundamental breach of the management agreement.

THE EVIDENCE IN THE ENGLISH PROCEEDINGS  
	I turn now to deal with a submission on behalf of Barry Hearn to the effect that these serious allegations are unreliable because they were not mentioned in paragraph 29 of Mr. Delahunt's affidavit of the 23rd August, 1995 which purports to set out "the principal breaches" alleged against Barry Hearn on the instructions of Stephen Collins who at that time was in America training for the Collins/Eubank rematch which was due to be held (and was held) in Pairc Ui Cuiv, Cork on the 9th September.
	It is submitted that this shows that the reasons now relied upon as breaches were not relied upon on the earlier occasion and that this evidence should be treated with caution.  I have considered this submission and given appropriate weight to it.
	I would point out, in this context, that the affidavit of Brian Delahunt was apparently prepared upon the understanding that the true legal position was that the management agreement expired by efflux of time on the 11th May, 1995.  Paragraph 29 of 
Mr. Delahunt's affidavit concludes by referring to the relatively trivial alleged breaches of agreement (none of which are now relied upon as fundamental) referred to earlier in the paragraph with the following averment:-

	"Stephen Collins informs me and I verily believe that this led to a break-down in the trust and confidence which he reposed in the Plaintiff as his manager.  This was the reason why Stephen Collins did not extend the agreement with the Plaintiff."

	Paragraph 29 purports to deal with "breaches of the management agreement of 9th May, 1994" and proceeds upon the basis that that agreement ceased to have effect on the 
11th May, 1995.  Many of the breaches asserted in these proceedings preceded the 11th May, 1995 but of the fundamental breaches only that relating to the nobbling of the referee did so.  I have given weight, therefore, to the submission that it is anomalous that no reference is made to this alleged nobbling in paragraph 29 of Mr. Delahunt's affidavit.  Mr. Collins' explanation of this was that he had been advised by his lawyers not to "take on" Barry Hearn at this stage because he was still powerful with the WBO and in boxing circles and he had been further advised that as the English proceedings were concerned with jurisdiction there was sufficient material in the breaches referred to in paragraph 29 to succeed on that point and in the result that advice had proved correct.
	Whilst the English proceedings did in fact succeed on the jurisdictional point I do not accept that they were concerned exclusively with jurisdiction and indeed paragraph 29 purports to set out the "principal breaches" then alleged against Barry Hearn.  I find it difficult to accept that Stephen Collins was advised as he now says or that he correctly understood whatever advice was given him.  The new promotion agreement between his company and Frank Warren is dated the 5th September, 1995 and I assume that at the end of August when Mr. Delahunt's affidavit was sworn he was in active negotiation with Frank Warren.  Nor does this submission become irrelevant merely because I have rejected the evidence in relation to the nobbling approach.  This allegation was strenuously pursued in these proceedings and I have accepted Mr. Collins' evidence that in April of 1995 he was made aware of it.  It is indeed strange, therefore, that no mention is made of it in paragraph 29 of Mr. Delahunt's affidavit and I do not think that this has been explained in a completely satisfactory way.
	Be that as it may, it is clear and accepted by Barry Hearn that he did indeed attack Frank Warren/Sports Network at the purse bid ceremony and I have held that this was a fundamental breach involving repudiation which was accepted by Stephen Collins in his letter of 6th June, 1995.  I am also satisfied that the Valcarcel correspondence of that month was a fundamental breach.  The fact that they are not mentioned in paragraph 29 of Mr. Delahunt's affidavit of 23rd August, 1995 (when clearly they could have been) does not alter the fact of their existence or the legal implications which flow from it.  Notwithstanding the reservations which I have expressed in relation to paragraph 29 of Mr. Delahunt's affidavit, I am satisfied that Stephen Collins was overall a reliable and truthful witness and in general I accept his evidence.  The one noteworthy exception to this to which I should refer is his claim that Barry Hearn had procured the false testimony of the other witnesses who gave evidence for the Plaintiff.  I do not accept that this was so and I think I made that clear at the trial.  However, this does not alter my view of Stephen Collins' evidence generally.

STEPHEN COLLINS' OWN BEHAVIOUR
	I deal now with a submission made on behalf of Barry Hearn that Stephen Collins had himself rendered the management agreement impossible of performance since the 18th March, 1995.  He had not gone back to train in Romford since the Millstreet bout, was well nigh impossible to contact despite frequent attempts so to do by Barry Hearn and he acknowledged in cross-examination that he wanted nothing more to do with Barry Hearn after the Millstreet fight and that this remained his attitude in the months of March, April, May and June.
	It is a matter of common sense, I think, that Stephen Collins cannot complain of a failure on the part of Barry Hearn to provide services for him which he did not want and which he effectively prevented.
	The submission that Stephen Collins had himself repudiated the agreement must, however, be seen in the light of the following evidence in relation to the attendance by Barry Hearn as Stephen Collins' manager, at the Purse Bid ceremony in New York on 29th May, 1995 for the Collins/Eubank re-match.
	Barry Hearn agrees that he went to the purse bid ceremony in New York on the 29th May as manager of Stephen Collins.  Furthermore Stephen Collins accepted that if Barry Hearn had been the successful bidder then he would have accepted the promotion of the Eubank rematch under the promotion of Barry Hearn.  In this regard, therefore, I hold that Stephen Collins did not make it impossible for Barry Hearn to attend in his capacity as his manager at the purse bid ceremony.  I think a distinction has to be drawn, furthermore, between a failure to deliver a service and an active attempt at sabotage.  In my view Barry Hearn attempted to undermine the efficacy of the purse bid by attacking the credibility of Frank Warren/Sports Network and this is something which cannot be explained or excused by the argument that Stephen Collins was preventing him generally from carrying out his duties.  Plainly Barry Hearn was not prevented from attending on behalf of Stephen Collins at the Purse-Bid ceremony in New York on 29th May.  His conduct thereat was a fundamental breach by him amounting to a repudiation of the management agreement, as indeed was the subsequent "Valcarcel" correspondence.
	I consider that Barry Hearn's repudiation of the management agreement was accepted by Stephen Collins in his letter of 6th June, 1995.  Furthermore I hold that no management services entitling Barry Hearn to a fee were provided after the 18th March, 1995 and specifically that Barry Hearn is not entitled to a fee in connection with the Collins/Eubank re-match for reasons already given.
	In light of the foregoing I find that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief and I must dismiss their claims.

schedule

THE VALCARCEL CORRESPONDENCE

MATCHROOM BOXING LIMITED

FAX TRANSMISSION

Name:	 	Francisco Valcarcel - WBO		Fax:	001 809 765 4226

From:		Barry Hearn				Fax:	01708 723425

Date:		7 June, 1995

No. of pages inc. this one : 2
===================================================================

Dear Francisco,

Re:  Steve Collins versus Chris Eubank

Further to our purse offer in New York last week I am beginning to doubt whether the winning bidder, Mr Frank Warren, intends to really promote this fight within the stipulated time frame as laid down by the WBO at the purse bid, i.e. 31st July.  It is quite clear to me that we have had no official announcement of the venue and I think that more than likely Mr Warren will ignore the orders of the WBO and instigate either a medical delay or some other reason so that he can go ahead and promote the fight some time towards the end of August.

This situation is of course totally unacceptable to Chris Eubank, the mandatory challenger for this fight and all parties agreed at the time of the purse bid that the fight must take place prior to the 31st July 1995.  Clearly there can be no exception to this rule, as all parties were in agreement with it at the time of the purse bid offer.

Chris Eubank is determined to fight at the end of July, he is fit and well and obviously wishes to reclaim his WBO Super Middleweight title, which he has held so proudly for over four years.  Clearly he is relying on the WBO to hold all parties to their undertaking that the fight must take place by 31st July and has asked me to request that should for any reason, Steve Collins not be in a position to defend his title on the appropriate day, for whatever reason, then he should be allowed to fight for an interim championship on the 29th July with the winner going on to fight Steve Collins for the official title on a 50/50 basis.

For my part, I have supported the WBO for a number of years and I clearly want to see fair play to all parties.  Frank Warren's representative was aware and duly signed for the fight taking place prior to the 31st July, but I feel this  was purely going through the motions and unless I am mistaken they had no intention whatsoever of promoting it before that date.  I should also like to see the WBO order an interim title fight, should Steve Collins not be in a position to fight or Frank Warren not be in a position to promote the fight.  Clearly, if Warren is not in a position to promote the fight then I would expect his deposit to be distributed to the champion and the challenger in accordance with laid down WBO rules.

Francisco, I hope that we can rely on your support and that of your colleagues to make sure that these rules are kept to and should for any reason, you hear from promoter Frank Warren, that he is unable to promote the fight prior to the 31st July you will allow Chris Eubank his right to challenge for the interim title and to then proceed with a 50/50 challenge against Steve Collins at an appropriate date, i.e. within sixty days of the end of the 31st July.

I look forward to your confirmation that our agreement made at the time of the purse offer will continue.

Yours sincerely,

Barry Hearn

FAX TRANSMISSION

ATTN:		Francisco Valcarcel - WBO - 001 809 765 4226

FROM:	Barry Hearn  - 01708 723425 England

DATE:		13 June, 1995

No. of pages inc. this one : Four (4)
===================================================================

Dear Francisco,

As predicted in my last fax to the WBO dated 7th June 1995 (copy enclosed), it will come as no surprise to you that Steve Collins has pulled out of his planned defence against Chris Eubank on the grounds of illness.

Promoter Frank Warren has requested a postponement until September and as I explained to you at the purse offer ceremony I honestly did not believe that he ever had any intention of promoting this contest in July.

There are two fundamental issues at stake here, firstly all parties agreed at the purse bid  ceremony that the bidding was subject to the fight between Eubank and Collins taking place prior to the 31st July 1995.  Clearly the whole purse bid ceremony was conditional upon this contest taking place before the end of July and as this will not now happen, we must have a new purse bid ceremony if the WBO agree to give Frank Warren the benefit of the doubt and allow the postponement.  All parties signed an agreement that the contest would take place by the end of July and accordingly I did not bid, as I had no American television in July, although I will have in September.  Hence I did not bid, as clearly I played by the rules that the fight must take place by the end of July.  I now wish to bid if the fight is to be allowed to take place in September and I understand that Tommy Gilmour would also like to bid again, as clearly he was calculating his figures based on a July fight.

Before a delay in this contest can be allowed, surely we must insist on a reputable doctor's certificate outlining details of the illness (?) that Collins is suffering from.  It is eight weeks before the fight, so one assumes that it must be quite a serious illness!

Secondly, again the issue is Chris Eubank's boxing career.  Chris Eubank has been a WBO Super Middleweight Champion for over four years and has always been 100% loyal to the WBO.  He has turned down numerous opportunities in the past few weeks to box for other organisations titles, simply because he is proud to have been and wishes to again be the WBO Champion.

Everything in his training has been geared for boxing for the title at the end of July  and his participation in the purse bid as the mandatory challenger was subject to that date being achieved.

In the light of these exceptional circumstances, I would make a formal request on Eubank's behalf that in common with past WBO contests that Chris Eubank be allowed to fight the next highest available contender for the Interim Championship of the division, under the WBO rules.

As you know we have done this before when Manning Galloway was the interim title holder, when Eamonn Loughran could not meet his mandatory obligation and I believe also that Sammy Fuentes also became an interim champion while we were waiting on the medical reports of Zack Padilla.  Francisco we have a precedent on both these cases and I would ask that Eubank be given some respect and facility.  It is the least this great Champion should expect from his governing body and I can confirm that I have a television spot and venue in place for July 29th.

I hope all our friends at the WBO will therefore allow Chris to fight for the interim title on 29th July and then we will proceed immediately after with a new purse bid ceremony whereby Chris Eubank and Steve Collins, or the winner of the interim championship may fight within 60 days for the WBO Super Middleweight Title, obviously on a 50/50 basis within the laid down rules of the WBO.

Chris Eubank is anxious to hear of your decision and I would be obliged if you would confirm your support for the interim championship and confirmation that we will have a new purse bid ceremony in respect of the Steve Collins contest as soon as possible, to allow me to begin work on the 29th July show.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards.

Yours sincerely,

Barry Hearn.										enc.

c.c.	John Montano		001 602 542 3093
	Wiso Fernandez	001 809 722 4305 and 001 809 764 8695

FAX TRANSMISSION

ATTN:		Francisco Valcarcel - WBO - 001 809 722 4305

FROM:	Barry Hearn - 01708 723425 England

DATE:		15 June, 1995

No. of pages inc. this one : Two (2)
===================================================================

Dear Francisco,

I have heard now that Steve Collins has an injured finger (!) and will not be able to train for two weeks and therefore promoter Frank Warren wishes to postpone the fight until September.

This is totally unsatisfactory and quite contrary to the agreement we reached at the purse offer ceremony.

On behalf of Chris Eubank I must reiterate my request for a new purse offer ceremony if the fight is allowed to take place later than the 31st July 1995 and also for Chris Eubank to participate in an interim world championship to take place on July 29th in England against an opponent from the top ten.

It is ridiculous that Collins' injury to his finger should prevent this proposed contest taking place.  His doctor's certificate is dated June 8th and says that he is unable to train for two weeks.  Clearly in a boxing sense this is nonsense, as an injured finger does not stop a fighter running, skipping and generally keeping himself 100% fit - it purely prevents him from sparring.

Also, it is not abnormal for a fighter to begin sparring five weeks prior to a world championship fight and according to his own doctor Collins would be able to do that providing he lets his finger rest for two weeks from June 8th.

We all know I believe that this is just an excuse and that Frank Warren has been unable to come up with a venue that can stage the fight within the WBO time scale and clearly he does not want to lose his deposit, hence Mr Collins' very serious injury to his finger!

Francisco, I do not think we are being treated fairly here, neither Chris Eubank nor the WBO, by these ridiculous excuses.  We have no guarantee about this fight taking place at all and clearly the agreement that all parties reached at the time of making the purse offer, made the purse offer conditional upon the fight taking place by 31st July 1995 and no one can complain if the WBO now insist on a new purse offer ceremony.  I would confirm that I would intend to bid at the new purse offer for a fight in September, as by that time I have more extensive television coverage and a bigger venue available, both of which were not in place for a fight to take place by July 31st.  I think we need to be seen to be acting fairly and there is no question that all parties were aware of the criteria set down by the WBO at the time of the purse offer.

Chris Eubank would like it to be known that he remains completely loyal to the WBO and understands fully how beneficial he has been to the status of the WBO during the past five years.  Obviously he is now looking to be fairly treated by them and would make therefore a desperate plea to you to allow him to fight an interim championship on July 29th and at the same time to call for a new purse offer ceremony for his proposed mandatory challenge against Steve Collins.

Without these requests being granted, then I do not believe we are being fair with Chris Eubank, nor are we treating him with the contractual respect that we all should.

Time is of course of the essence and bearing in mind the poor excuse of Steve Collins' finger injury I hope the WBO will now fax me to confirm that Chris Eubank may fight an interim world championship on July 29th and that we will at the same time proceed with a new purse offer ceremony for the eventual mandatory challenge between Steve Collins and Chris Eubank.

Francisco, I hope you can grant these wishes as soon as possible in order that arrangements may be made by 29th July.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards.

Yours sincerely,

Barry Hearn

c.c.	John Montano

FAX TRANSMISSION

ATTN:		Francisco Valcarcel - WBO - 001 809 722 4305

FROM:	Barry Hearn - 01708 723425 England

DATE:		15 June, 1995

No. of pages inc. this one : One (1)
===================================================================

Dear Francisco,

Further to my previous fax to you today, I have now heard from our television network that I must give them an answer by close of business tomorrow Friday 16th June 1995.

Clearly if we do not go ahead on July 29th, our client Mr. Eubank will face serious financial loss due to the non-performance by Mr. Warren of not promoting the Eubank/Collins fight under the deadline set by the WBO at the purse offer ceremony.

We have an opportunity to avoid this financial disaster by staging an interim world title fight for Eubank on July 29th, but we need confirmation in writing from the WBO that following the delay of the Collins/Eubank contest, you will permit an interim title fight under the WBO rules.

Clearly Chris Eubank is anxious to avoid any financial claim and would rather fight on July 29th, as it was always intended that he should and we both hope that the WBO will grant this request as a matter of great urgency.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards.

Yours sincerely,

Barry Hearn

(Dictated by Barry Hearn & signed in his absence)

c.c. John Montano

FAX TRANSMISSION

ATTN:		Francisco Valcarcel - WBO - 001 809 722 4305/809 765 4226

FROM:	Barry Hearn - 01708 723425 England

DATE:		19 June, 1995

No. of pages inc. this one : One (1)
===================================================================

Dear Francisco,

Time is now slipping away and I must give my television company confirmation that we will be staging a Chris Eubank fight on 29th July.

We will suffer huge financial losses if we do not go ahead with this show and frankly in view of the deception of other parties in their conditional purse offer, it is grossly unfair if Chris Eubank does not have the opportunity to fight for an interim title now.

I have opened negotiations with Sugar Boy Malinga's people and with the manager of Jose Ignacio Barreutabeña of Spain to be the interim opponent, but I need your confirmation in writing that we may proceed before I lose my TV slot.

I have checked here and it is quite impossible for Frank Warren to get a date in the first two weeks of August and I think he knew even at the time of the purse offer that he was making a bid that would defectively block the title, rather than proceed with a fight at the end of July - which was always impossible for him.

Steve Collins' injury to his finger is laughable and I trust you will give us the opportunity now to keep this title active in line with past practice and I look forward to receiving your letter to avoid the financial losses to which I have referred.

Thank you as always for your fair treatment and I look forward to receiving your confirmation letter.

Kind regards.

Yours sincerely,

Barry Hearn

 (Dictated by Barry Hearn & signed in his absence)			c.c. John Montano

FAX TRANSMISSION

ATTN:		Francisco Valcarcel - WBO - 001 809 722 4305/809 765 4226

FROM:	Barry Hearn - 01708 723425 England

DATE:		20 June, 1995

No. of pages inc. this one : One (1)
===================================================================

Dear Francisco,

Further to our conversation on the telephone yesterday evening, I am very much looking forward to hearing the decision the WBO make in this difficult matter of the Eubank/Collins rematch.

I must record once again that in the purse offer ceremony in New York it was a condition of the purse bid and signed and agreed by all parties present that the fight must take place prior to 31st July 1995.  It therefore follows that if for any reason this fight does not take place by July 31st, then the purse bid in New York is null and void, as it was a conditional purse bid.

Irrespective of anyones arguments on this point, all the participating parties signed an agreement, witnessed by all the other parties present, that everyone was in agreement that this purse bid should be conditional and I trust that this point is beyond dispute.

Of course we have a precedence within the WBO rules for previous interim championships when a mandatory cannot take place by the prescribed date and I trust again that we will maintain consistency in our decisions by ordering another interim championship prior to the end of July.

I look forward very much to hearing from you sometime later today.

Kind regards.

Yours sincerely,

Barry Hearn

FAX TRANSMISSION

ATTN:		John Montano - WBO - 001 602 542 3093

FROM:	Barry Hearn - 01708 723425 England

DATE:		26 June, 1995

No. of  pages inc. this one : One (1)
===================================================================

Dear John,

Further to our telephone conversation on Friday, I would very much like to receive your written confirmation of the following compromise agreement in respect of Chris Eubank and Steve Collins mandatory title fight:-

1.	WBO will agree to Chris Eubank having a ten round non title fight on 29th July 		against Jose Ignacio Barreutabeña of Spain.

2.	Barreutabeña will be installed in the WBO ratings in July at no. 4 to replace Frankie Liles, who has been included in the WBO rankings, but is in fact the WBA Super Middleweight Champion.

3.	Should for any reason Frank Warren the promoter announce that the Eubank/Collins fight will not take place prior to the 9th September 1995, then the Barreutabeña/Eubank contest will be recognised as an interim title fight under the WBO rules.

This is a major compromise by Chris Eubank, who has accepted an extension to the Eubank/Collins fight, despite the fact that the purse bid was conditional that this contest takes place by 31st July 1995 and I trust that the WBO will appreciate once again Chris Eubank's loyalty to its organisation, despite several offers coming from other organisations for his services.

We shall proceed to promote the ten round contest on July 29th and intend to announce it tomorrow, so I would be very grateful to receive your written confirmation of our agreement in respect of this purse bid for Eubank/Collins and look forward to receiving your written confirmation sometime today.

Yours sincerely

Barry Hearn
(Dictated by Barry Hearn & signed in his absence)