Quote Derwent="Derwent"FA, I'm aware of all of that but this thread is from an employment perspective. Under what employment law could a non-employing entity interfere with the employment of an individual ? Kopczak was employed by Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd, not Bradford Bulls RL club.'"
In fact I think he probably was employed by Bradford Bulls RL Club on paper, but the club is the person/s who own it, you're making a needless distinction. It amounts to the same thing in this context.
Quote Derwent="Derwent" So how can the RL club have any right under law to prevent him moving employers, or to restrict his employment opportunities ?'"
Again, BB is in reality the legal entity OKB trading as BB. Whatever BB does it is really OKB acting under, if you like, an assumed name.
But the question is one of law, in law clearly his contract has passed from BBHL to OKB, as OKB bough the business, and all employees WERE 'TUPE'd" across. Including Kopczak, as it happens, because he didn't "resign" until some days after the change of ownership. I'm not an employment lawyer but the issue he has raised seems to be whether he can negate that after the event, if he does so within a relatively short timescale.
Quote Derwent="Derwent" Regarding membership of the RFL, as I understand it, from a legal perspective it is the company which is a member of the RFL not "the club". Each company is given a £1 ordinary share in the RFL upon membership being granted, to enable a dividend of RFL profits to be paid at the end of the year. ...'"
I'd agree with that, but the share is an asset of BBHL and will plainly have been sold to OKB. The issue for the RFL was whether to ratify or accept the membership of OKB. The reports refer to this as a "transfer" of membership and for all practical purposes it is.