Golfer Rory McIlroy has claimed he got “markedly inferior” representation terms compared to fellow golfer Graeme McDowell despite alleged representations they would get similar terms.
Rossa Fanning, for Mr McIlroy, told the Commercial Court yesterday it had been represented to Mr McIlroy by Conor Ridge of Horizon Sports Management that Mr McIlroy would get the same terms as Mr McDowell but his client had got “markedly inferior” terms.
Mr McIlroy wants to amend his legal proceedings against Horizon and two other companies so as to make that claim, counsel said.
The alleged representation by Mr Ridge was one of two “extraordinary” matters of which Mr McIlroy became aware from documents discovered for his case, counsel added. The second “extraordinary” matter was Mr McDowell was a shareholder of Horizon, he added.
‘Very significant’ complaint
Counsel stressed he wanted to make clear Mr McIlroy has no issue with Mr McDowell, was not making a complaint about him and had no intention of involving him in the legal action.
His “very significant” complaint was rather that Mr Ridge had represented to Mr McIlroy his terms would be similar to Mr McDowell’s, counsel said.
Paul Sreenan SC, for Horizon and the other defendants, said Mr Fanning had referred to “extraordinary” revelations but the claim it had been represented to Mr McIlroy his terms would be the same as Mr McDowell’s was not part of his case to date and rather his case was seeking to rescind his representation agreements. It was not clear now what Mr McIlroy wanted to rescind, counsel said.
Mr Sreenan said it was never represented to Mr McIlroy the terms to apply to him were identical to those of Mr McDowell and it was rather agreed the terms would be similar to those under an ISM agreement and he had indicated he was satisfied with that.
Mr McIlroy was also aware since October or November last that Mr McDowell was a shareholder in Horizon, Mr Sreenan said. The position was Mr McIlroy’s representation agreement was not with Horizon but with another defendant company, Gurteen.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly said he would fix the full hearing of the case for January 27th next. If the defendants did not agree to the proposed amendments of Mr McIlroy’s case, that matter could be mentioned to the court next month, he added.
‘Unreasonable’ fee rates
In his action, Mr McIlroy is challenging the validity and enforceability of representation agreements involving allegedly “unreasonable” fee rates and commissions. The case is against Dublin-based Horizon Sports Management Ltd; Gurteen Ltd, with a registered address in Malta; and Dublin-based Canovan Management Services.
He disputes claims he had a representation agreement with Gurteen or Canovan, rather than with Horizon Sports Management.
He argues a representation agreement signed by him in December 2011 is not valid and is unenforceable on grounds including undue influence. That agreement was signed when he was aged 22, inexperienced and without the benefit of independent legal advice, he claims.
The defendants deny the claims and have counter-claimed for some $3 million allegedly outstanding for off-course gross revenue and other sums allegedly outstanding under the December 2011 and a March 2013 agreement, plus damages for alleged past and continuing breaches of the agreements.
They claim they have been denied the opportunity to sell the branding rights to Mr McIlroy’s golf bag and to continue building his global commercial model under an alleged agreed long-term strategy.
