Former Melbourne Rebels board members have received an early minor win after a federal court judge rebuked Rugby Australia’s request for more time to respond to the ousted Super Rugby’s $30 million damages suit levelled against them.

The ousted Rebels, whose board members are on the hook for almost $8m, are demanding access to RA’s computer server. The members are seeking access to a RA computer server that hosted email accounts, calendars and Xero and MYOB accounting software.

The former Rebels board members are hoping to prove RA was aware of their financial situation and had promised to bail out the franchise, which collapsed in January with more than $20m in debts.

Loaded: 48.38%

Former Melbourne Rebels board members have received an early minor win after a federal court judge rebuked Rugby Australia’s request for more time to respond to the ousted Super Rugby’s $30 million damages suit levelled against them.

The ousted Rebels, whose board members are on the hook for almost $8m, are demanding access to RA’s computer server. The members are seeking access to a RA computer server that hosted email accounts, calendars and Xero and MYOB accounting software.

The former Rebels board members are hoping to prove RA was aware of their financial situation and had promised to bail out the franchise, which collapsed in January with more than $20m in debts.

Rebels players form a huddle after the Super Rugby Pacific Quarter Final match between Hurricanes and Melbourne Rebels at Sky Stadium, on June 08, 2024. (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

RA remain steadfast that they did nothing wrong and no such promises were made.

As such, the governing body announced last month that they planned to countersue the seven former Rebels directors for deceiving the governing body about their financial position.

At the first day of hearings, Sydney silk Tony Bannon SC argued the Rebels’ statement of claim was deficient because it did not provide enough specific detail about the allegations it was making against the sporting body.

“They [the Rebels] plead that each of the directors relied on what we will describe as generalised, perhaps amorphous representations alleged to have been made by the respondent,” Bannon argued.

“We don’t know whether they were express. We don’t know whether they were implied.  We don’t know whether they were oral.  My learned friend says a number of these were oral. There’s no identification that these were express, applied or oral, and we’re entitled to at least know what they are.”

Rugby Australia CEO Phil Waugh and Chair Daniel Herbert speak to the media after announcing that the governing body would not bail out the Melbourne Rebels. (Photo by Morgan Hancock/Getty Images)

But Rebels counsel Philip Crutchfield KC told the court that RA was already familiar with the allegations and there had been “stony silence” from the sporting body regarding its claims for more than six months.

“Rugby Australia has been on notice made in the statement of claim since the 1st of March. On that day, we provided the solicitors for Rugby Australia with the draft statement of claim,” he said.

He added: “On 9 July, we provided another draft of the statement, and it’s … substantially in the same form as it is now.

“There has been no attempt by Rugby Australia to engage in the matter at all.”

The court heard the counsel for RA was only first briefed on October 22.

Justice Anderson, however, ruled that Bannon had demonstrated in court that he was well aware of the details of the case, and ordered that the national rugby body must file their counterclaim by November 7.

“Well, I’m afraid I’m against you, Mr Bannon,” he said.

“I think that you have sufficient – the pleading is such that it is pleaded with sufficient particularity to enable you to put on a defence. And I’m going to require you to do so. I’m not going to order that the applicant provide further and better particulars. You can take that up in correspondence with the respondent.”

The case is due back in the Federal Court on December 20.