Son wins right to launch court action against exploitation of Bradman’s name
By ANIFriday, July 31, 2009
ADELAIDE - Legendary Australian cricketer Sir Donald Bradman’s son has won the right to appeal against a judge’s ruling that he was too late in launching court action alleging exploitation of the legendary cricketer’s name.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, John Bradman and two other executors of Sir Donald’s estate are suing law firm Allens Arthur Robinson, seeking unspecified damages for using his father’s identity as “a brand name like Mickey Mouse”.
Bradman’s lawyers filed a statement of claim in the South Australian Supreme Court last year, alleging the law firm failed in “due care, skill and diligence” in assigning the cricket great’s name to the Bradman Foundation.
Allens legally advises the foundation, which licences the Bradman name to corporates to support the Bradman Museum and Bradman Trust.
The law firm also advised Sir Donald prior to his death in February 2001.
Bradman and the other executors allege Allens failed to follow Sir Donald’s instructions to allow them power of veto over decisions to use his name for commercial purposes.
Bradman’s displeasure became public in 2005 when the foundation licensed an Australian food company to market ‘Bradman’ chocolate chip cookies in India.
The Bradman family’s statement of claim said Sir Donald was “a loved and missed family member, not a brand name like Mickey Mouse”.
On March 27 this year, SA Supreme Court Justice Chris Kourakis ruled the law firm had not breached its retainer and the family had taken too long to lodge action on certain points of its claim.
Judge Kourakis ruled the court would hear argument about whether the law firm breached its trustee duties at a later date.
Last month, Judge Kourakis ordered Bradman and the other executors pay 80 per cent of Allens’ costs in defending the claim.
The case returned to court in Adelaide on Friday, when Justice Kourakis granted permission to Bradman’s lawyers to appeal his ruling regarding the timing aspect of their claim.
A date for the appeal was not set. (ANI)
